The Assembly met at 10.30 am (The Initial Presiding Officer (The Lord Alderdice of Knock) in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Presiding Officer’s Business

Lord Alderdice: The Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, in making preparations for today’s sitting and appreciating the number of Standing Orders to be considered, and with a significant number of amendments likely, requested me to write to the Secretary of State asking that her previous determination that the Assembly would be able to meet until 6 pm on 9March be extended to 10March.
The Secretary of State has replied as follows:
"By virtue of Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 it falls to me to determine where meetings of the Assembly shall be held, and when. In my letter of 26February, I directed that the Assembly shall meet at Parliament Buildings, Stormont at 10.30am on Monday 1March until 6pm on Tuesday 9March. Having considered your letter of 1March, I withdraw that direction and now direct that the Assembly shall meet at Parliament Buildings, Stormont, at 10.30am on Monday 1March until 10 pm on Tuesday 9March. I will consider making a further direction as respects this period, in particular in the light of any indication I may receive as to the wishes of Assembly Members after the Assembly has begun to meet."
The House needs to be aware that there are some 71 Standing Orders to be approved. In respect of item 3, the motion to take note of the report, I have received one amendment. However, in respect of item 4, the compendium of Standing Orders, there are some 87 amendments to be considered.
It is impossible at this stage to be sure how long these will take, but as we only have until 10.00pm tomorrow, unless there were a different determination from the Secretary of State, Members may find as today proceeds that it will be difficult to complete business if the sitting is suspended at 6.00pm today. Therefore I will take soundings, during the procedures this afternoon, through the usual channels to see whether the Assembly wishes to continue to meet into the later part of this evening and also tomorrow, or whether it wishes to suspend at 6.00pm this evening, resume at 10.30am tomorrow and sit until 10.00pm, or as late as is necessary. I will take soundings on that as it becomes apparent what we need to do.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Is it in order for the Assembly to congratulate Northern Ireland racing ace EddieIrvine on his magnificent victory in the early hours of yesterday morning in the Australian Formula One Grand Prix? Over the first months of 1999 we certainly have seen sporting excellence —

Lord Alderdice: Order. The Member has gone substantially beyond a point of order. As he knows, it is not in order for the Assembly to vote on a matter on which a motion has not been tabled in due time. It would be surprising if some personal messages of congratulation were not sent. If the Member wishes to table a motion on the matter he is perfectly at liberty to do so.
At the sitting of Monday 1March MrDavidErvine asked me to rule on the definition of fronting paramilitary organisations. I have reviewed the relevant extracts from Hansard and have nothing to add to my ruling at that time.
I should like to advise the Assembly on the procedure that I intend to follow on items3and4 on the Order Paper. Item3 is a relatively straightforward motion to take note of the report by the Committee on Standing Orders. After it is moved by the joint Chairs, I will take an amendment to it before inviting Members to address the general principles of the report. The amendment is for a general tidying-up — if I might put it in that way — and takes the form of a resolution on how the Assembly would treat the subsequent compilation of Standing Orders. I will take that at that time.
Because the report and the motion on it is not a change to Standing Orders, of itself it should not require cross-community support. However, because the amendment proposes to make changes, albeit of a largely typographical nature, to Standing Orders it will properly need to be decided by a cross-community vote. That means that the substantive motion, if the amendment is approved, will also have to be decided by cross-community vote.
Apart from the question of the amendment, I suppose that one might describe the debate as a second-reading type. In such a debate Members can deal with the report’s general principles outlined and with any other matters that arise from that.
I shall remind Members of some of what I am about to say at the appropriate point. Item 4 on the Order paper — approval of draft Standing Order — is a substantial piece of business. As I have said, there are some 87amendments. As Members are aware, amendments can be presented up to one hour prior to the commencement of the sitting, that is to say, until 9.30 am. Amendments were coming in up to that time. I apologise to Members on behalf of the staff for the fact that it has not been possible up to this moment to provide a full, marshalled list of amendments. That work is in progress, and I trust that a list will shortly be available to Members. I hope that the House will understand that a substantial amount of work was involved.
I have outlined the process that I intend to follow on item4. We shall take each natural section of the report. Some of those are quite short sections of perhaps half a dozen Standing Orders but other sections are much more substantial, with a considerable number of Standing Orders. However, we shall deal with the Standing Orders as they appear in their natural sections of the report. At each section we shall consider amendments to that section, discuss them in the order in which they are relevant to it, and debate the whole of that section at one time.
We will vote at the end of the debate on that section, and we must vote on each Standing Order. If there are no amendments it will be possible, as in the case of the clauses of a Bill, to take, say, Standing Orders 1 to 4. Strictly speaking, according to the Standing Orders every vote requires cross-community approval. However, if we were to vote on 71 Standing Orders and 87 amendments, about 160 cross-community votes would be required, and that would involve about 40 solid hours of voting. Members will agree that that is not a practical way to proceed.
In the case of Standing Orders that can be taken together because there are no amendments, I propose simply to put the Question and collect the responses. If there is no dissent I shall consider that cross-community support has been achieved. Any dissent on the vote on an amendment or on a Standing Order will allow no option but to proceed to a cross-community vote irrespective of the time that is involved.
When we come to the end of the consideration of the whole compendium of Standing Orders I will take a vote in the full fashion so that we can measure cross-community support for the Standing Orders as amended in the debate. I trust that that is reasonably clear, but I shall try to draw it again to the attention of Members.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I have no objection to what has been said about voting. A process that abbreviates the time spent voting is appropriate. Will there be a separate debate on each amendment? Taking amendments in groups means that there will not be a coherent debate on any one of them. We need to have a separate debate on each amendment.

Lord Alderdice: My proposal is to group the amendments according to the grouping of the Standing Orders. For example, the first group contains a small number of Standing Orders, and there would perhaps be some amendments at that point. I would ask the proposers of the amendments to speak to them in order, and we could debate all those amendments at that point.
If Members wish to proceed in another fashion, there will have to be a debate on 87 separate amendments. That would entail a substantial amount of work, and no matter how late we sit tonight and tomorrow we might have some difficulty in accommodating it. Some amendments would be more contentious than others. Each Member could speak for 10minutes in moving his amendment, and there is the subsequent response. In that sense each will have to be treated as a separate debate. If I do not treat them as separate debates, Members may speak only once for 10minutes during the consideration of the whole compendium of Standing Orders. That would be a completely unsatisfactory way to proceed.
If Members are content, we shall proceed to the debate on the report. Members will have the marshalled list of amendments delivered to them in the Chamber as soon as it is completed. I appreciate that Members must proceed to debate the report without having seen the list but the only alternative would be to suspend the sitting, and that could be done only by leave of the House. Unless I hear a proposal to that effect I propose to proceed to item 3, the debate on the report.

Assembly Standing Orders

Motion made:
This Assembly takes note of the report by the Committee on Standing Orders. — [Mr Cobain and Mr Haughey]

Mr Fred Cobain: The report of the Committees on Standing Orders is in two volumes. The first volume gives the essential detail, the remit, membership, what we did, how we did it and what we recommended, and so on. The minutes are appended.
The second volume contains the recommended Standing Orders. At our last meeting one might have expected that we would have agreed a cut and dried report — not so. The Committee was actively making changes to the report right up to the final bell.
Members should have also received the inevitable errata that accompanies this type of document. I would like to pay tribute to DenisHaughey, my joint Chair, who has done a marvellous job particularly on those occasions, one of which Members heard about last week, when the Committee found itself all at sea. At all times he has shown scrupulous fairness and a concern to keep the Committee together. I would also like to thank the Members of the Committee and the many substitutes.
Standing Orders is not an easy area for many people — indeed, it is not even an interesting one — but it was an essential area that had to be covered. All those involved, including the observers, must have been totally bemused at times. Our thanks are also due to MurrayBarnes and DenisArnold for all their hard work and support.
The Committee first met on 6July1998. We have held 22meetings and, bearing in mind the diverse make-up of the Committee, we have achieved much in bringing together this agreed report. When Denis Haughey and I were elected as joint Chairs of the Committee we resolved to proceed on the basis of consensus, as far as possible. The documents before the House today are there as a result of consensus.
Party size and the voting power that comes with it was not used to push things through. The smaller parties will testify to this and agree that their concerns were taken on board in a fair way. The Committee had its ups and downs, but everyone, including the substitutes, contributed in a constructive and helpful way. In the minutes Members will see that the 19strong Committee was well attended at all meetings.
We began by looking at the Standing Orders of different assemblies — the European Parliament, the Commons and the Dáil. In the absence of any guidance, we decided that the best basis on which to proceed would be to look at the Orders of the 1973 Assembly. We considered these, armed only with our knowledge of the agreement. We also looked at Initial Standing Orders and considered how we could adapt them.
We reported our progress to the Assembly on two occasions. Of course, all of this was overtaken by the Bill and the need to base many Standing Orders on this. The business of devising Standing Orders by committee is not an easy task. For a time some reliance was placed on officials to get on with the job and consult when necessary. The hastily drafted Bill underwent major amendment, as is usual, particularly during its passage through the Lords. Therefore complete clarity could not be expected until it was enacted. Standing Orders are, above all, procedures. Some of these are prescribed in the Act. The rest were devised by the Committee after lengthy deliberation.
We have produced 71 draft Standing Orders over a relatively short period. This compares with the Welsh who have drafted their Standing Orders in advance over a year. The Scots are also in the process of doing something similar. The advantage in our case is that we, the elected politicians, will have had a hand in producing our own compendium and that will result in a greater feeling of ownership.
The Standing Orders in the compendium are divided into ninesections dealing with all facets of the Assembly. The first section deals with preliminary matters that must be addressed at the beginning of any assembly. These Orders stick rigidly to the requirements of the Act, and there is little scope for any fundamental change.
The next section deals with the day-to-day business of the Assembly, and it owes as much to an updating of the 1973 procedures as to anything else. The Clerks at Westminster have been consulted on the updating process.
In respect of voting, we have adopted the Westminster-style Division system. This is not to say that we are against modernisation, and we can certainly look at alternatives in the future, but we have decided to opt for what we believe is a tried-and-tested methodology. For the time being, I believe, this is the safest route to take.
The next section deals with legislation. Once again we have proceeded according to the Act, and because this Assembly is unicameral we have decided to build in safeguards. Bills will normally undergo a five-stage process, which will include a full Committee stage, during which the statutory committee will consider the Bill in detail and may, if necessary, take evidence on the matter. In addition, the Assembly will have the opportunity to examine the legislation in detail. Should issues of equality arise, provision has been made for such issues to be referred to a special Assembly committee and, where necessary, to the Human Rights Commission. Again, these are requirements of the Act and of the agreement.
There may be incidences where primary legislation has to be passed quickly — for example, on social security matters where the Assembly will want to maintain parity with Great Britain — and so provision has been made for a process we have called the accelerated-passage procedure, which will enable Bills to be enacted within a relatively short period. However, this very necessary mechanism must not be abused. It should be used in exceptional cases only, and a considerable onus will be placed on Ministers to justify using it at all.
We have also given consideration to subordinate legislation. The agreement envisages a role here for Statutory Committees, and we have had to take account of this. But Statutory Instruments are generally of a technical nature. In many ways, they are best dealt with at a technical level, and we recommend the appointment of an examiner of statutory rules to assist the statutory committees in this field. We believe that the provisions of these Orders are capable of dealing with the full range of legislation — including financial legislation — that is likely to come before the Assembly.
The legislation section is followed by a short section on Ministerial appointments. You will note that there is no reference in the compendium to the appointments of the First and Deputy First Ministers. There is no need. Where the Act itself stipulates procedures, we have not repeated these in Standing Orders. Members may be surprised at the structure of the Standing Orders in this section, but I should point out that, like other Orders, they must be read alongside the Act. Here we differ from Westminster. The Westminster Parliament is sovereign, and we are not.
The next section deals with Committees. In addition to the Statutory Committees, we envisage having what we have called Standing Committees; examples of these are given in the compendium. These named Committees will include a representative from each party. We believe that in an Assembly of this type this is important.
There will also be other types of standing Committees in the future. These may be less central to what we do, and we recommend that, like the statutory Committees, they have a fixed membership of 11.
We also see scope for a further type of Committee which we have simply called "ad hoc Committees". Such Committees would be set up to deal with issues over a specified time and would then be stood down; the present Ad Hoc Committee (Port of Belfast) may well be an example. The Committee membership figure of 11 was arrived at following much debate, and the Committee considered using the matrix at the back of Volume 1 of the report — the impact that different sizes of committees would have on parties. We believe that the Chair and Deputy Chairs of Statutory and Standing Committees should be appointed using the d’Hondt system, but it will be up to the Assembly to decide on the appointment of Chairs to ad hoc Committees.
There is another issue to do with committees which I must mention. There is no Statutory Committee for central functions. There could be a non-statutory Committee with powers to call for persons and papers, but the Act does not allow for any Statutory Committee. I could say more about Committees, but time is against me.
The next section deals with order and is self-explanatory. The only point I want to make here is that the Keeper of the House, a functionary whom we equate, in some respects, with the Serjeant at Arms at Westminster or the Captain of the Guard in the Dáil, will not have the full powers that are deemed to be necessary in the Standing Orders until the Assembly legislates on this matter. This should not present any problems.
Last week the Assembly adopted the proposals on Members’ interests. I will say something about that because it is a matter for Standing Orders. Ideally the Assembly should have its own Commissioner on standards. This will be the case in Wales and probably in Scotland, and it would be appropriate here also. The Commissioner would have duties similar to those of the Commissioner at Westminster and would report to the Assembly’s Committee on Standards and Privileges. This committee’s principal officer would be the Clerk of Standards and the custodian of the register of Members’ interests. This is the structure envisaged, but, as pointed out by the other joint Chairman, a deeper consideration of the whole issue will have to await the formation of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
The last section of the report is called "Other Orders". It contains two late entries on language and the Commission. The language Standing Order is the briefest in the compendium, and its conciseness belies the time spent by the Committee on it.
The Committee has worked for inclusiveness, as is borne out by its decision to recommend that the much over-burdened Commission be given the assistance that is due to it. We suggest that five-a-side is far too strenuous a game for the elderly quantity surveyors, and we recommend a full team of 11.

Mr Denis Haughey: In moving the motion with my Colleague, I commend the report to the House.

Lord Alderdice: I understand that Members have not yet received copies of the amendment that is about to be moved. I have asked, somewhat unusually, that the Doorkeepers make themselves available to distribute it in the Chamber. As soon as we have the full list of marshalled amendments, I will arrange to have it distributed as well.

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move the following amendment: At the end of the motion add
"and further notes that the Standing Orders, once approved by the Assembly, shall be renumbered where necessary, punctuated and proofed to ensure consistent language".
As someone who never darkened the door of the Standing Orders Committee, it falls to me to be the first person to welcome the publication of its report. I congratulate the Committee on the very substantial task that it has performed. I would also like to point out that the 70-odd amendments that are down in my name are not meant as a criticism. It is inevitable that any substantial document listing Standing Orders is open to amendment.
Most of the amendments are of a tidying-up nature. The amendment to this motion is of a general character, and there is no party-political edge to it whatsoever. It simply allows me to do what it would otherwise have taken another 200amendments to do — it is one catch-all amendment.
There is a series of punctuation errors and a proliferation of instances where different terms are being used for the same activity. For example, "lodged" and "deposited" both appear, as does "left with" on one occasion, and there are many similar references. There needs to be consistency. And if any of the amendments are passed, or if any of the initial Standing Orders are deleted, there will have to be a renumbering.
I have no emotional capital tied up in the wording of any amendment. They are there to show that there is a gap to be filled or that a change is required. They can be concluded in whatever terms Members wish. I do not know — and this is a question for the Initial Presiding Officer — what the procedure would be in the House if Members wanted to change the terms of an amendment. I know that Members still have not seen the amendments. They may, however, agree with the thrust of an amendment but find its terminology awkward or unsatisfactory. Will they be permitted to table a manuscript amendment, or is there another way of dealing with such a case?
In the last two meetings of the Assembly we have been dealing with matters that are of equal importance to every Member. The normal party political divisions did not take place, the pro- and anti-agreement factions did not take different sides. That should also be the case in relation to Standing Orders. Although some of us may not have recognised it yet, we all have a vested interest in ensuring that the Standing Orders we produce this week are reasonable, fair to everyone and can stand the test of time.
When we propose an amendment to a Standing Order, we do not know whether it will eventually be used in our favour or against us. At this stage we can only judge what is right and proper and create a set of Standing Orders that ensures we regulate our business in a fair and reasonable way.
The amendments in my name, in general, will not need to be debated. Most of them are self-explanatory and I hope they will be accepted. Most of them are meant to be tidying-up measures, but some might be described as probing amendments. It could be that, in debate, the Committee will be able to show that the substance of an amendment has been dealt with elsewhere, in which case I shall be content to withdraw. However, should we discover that the matter has not been dealt with, I will obviously wish to move that amendment.
As I said, some of my amendments are intended to fill gaps. On some occasions these are gaps that we are required to fill by the Northern Ireland Act. Where the Act requires us to bring in a Standing Order on a particular matter, we must do so. In some instances the first draft of the Standing Orders fails to do this. There are also one or two areas where I have raised new issues. Members will take a view on these as they are raised.
I am concerned about the premise that our Standing Orders must be read alongside the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Belfast Agreement. This means that every good Assembly Member is going to have to go around with three documents tucked under his or her arm. We could get to the stage where one consolidated document, even if it only imported the language of other documents which are referred to in it, became a consolidated volume of Standing Orders.
As the Standing Orders Committee has recognised, there is an ongoing role for that Committee, particularly in the early stages of any institution, and no doubt after today, as we work through the Assembly, we will have many occasions on which Standing Orders need to be framed, and the Committee will be able to do that. I hope that in doing so it will also attempt to get a consolidated volume.
In moving the amendment, I was not sure if there was some confusion on the part of some of the officials of the Assembly or of some of the members of the Standing Orders Committee about the process that has to be followed. My concern about that arose as soon as I was handed a copy of the list of errata. An errata list is quite acceptable if one gets it along with a report or printed document that is not amendable, but if it is an amendable document the only changes that can be made to it are by way of amendment, and that has to be done in the Assembly.
Indeed, the reason there is an amendment to the take-note motion is to ensure that: no one outside the Assembly can tamper with the end product of our deliberations after Tuesday evening. That can be done only by ourselves unless we instruct somebody specifically to carry out a task in relation to it. So, in case no amendment was moved by the Committee to agree the errata as a change, one of my amendments is to do just that. However, there should have been an errata to the errata, because there were some errors in it.
Other amendments take account of some matters that should have been included. Whether or not there was a misunderstanding about the process, the only change that can take place to the published document is by way of an amendment during the course of this debate or subsequently in the Assembly.
I should indicate that the general issue behind these amendments is to provide the Assembly with a document that does not require to be amended after each meeting of the House. It is undoubtedly the case that we will have to define further many of the Standing Orders that we are producing or allow the Speaker certain discretion in their interpretations or accept ErskineMay or some other volume as a mechanism whereby we can adjudicate on issues not covered by the Standing Orders.

Mr Conor Murphy: A Chathaoirligh, I acknowledge the work done by the Standing Orders Committee and pay tribute to the officials who have serviced that Committee over the last eight months. The task given to the Committee last July was not an easy one in view of the political importance that is attached to the rules which govern the conduct of the Assembly and the diversity of political opinion around the table. An early indication of this came with the number of meetings that it took to elect the people who eventually became the joint Chairpersons.
Further problems were created by the timescale in which we had to complete our business and by the fact that the legislation, which had a direct impact on the Standing Orders, was processing through Westminster during this time. This caused our deliberations to be suspended for at least two of the eight months during which we were sitting.
Despite all that, in the main the atmosphere in the Committee was constructive and businesslike. There was a great deal of agreement on most issues. We were able to reach compromises on many other issues, although it is a matter of regret that compromise could not be achieved on the recognition of the Irish language within the Chamber. That matter will be dealt with by my Colleague.
I should like to deal with an issue that caused great concern to the entire Committee and which is reflected in paragraph 7 of the report. It is the issue of a statutory committee to scrutinise the executive functions of the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers. When the Committee discussed on 11February the appointment of statutory committees I raised the question of a statutory committee to scrutinise the executive functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers. On my proposal, the Committee agreed to add the phrase from paragraph8 in strand one of the Good Friday Agreement which states
"There will be a Committee for each of the main executive functions of the Northern Ireland Administration."
That became part of the Standing Order. At the subsequent meeting on 17February, we were informed that provisions in the Northern Ireland Act prevent the establishment of a statutory committee for the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers because they are not considered to be Northern Ireland Ministers. Standing Order44(1)(a) was rewritten to reflect the requirements of the Act, and removed the word from the Good Friday Agreement. The detailed explanations for that are in the appendix to the minutes of the meeting on 17February.
Therefore the Committee on Standing Orders has been rendered powerless by the Act to provide the Assembly with the range of scrutiny powers of executive functions that was envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. What can benignly be interpreted as a serious flaw or gap in the drafting of the legislation contradicts not only the wording of the agreement to which it was to give legislative effect, but has serious consequences for the ability of the Assembly to provide completely open and accountable government.
Regrettably, that is not the only derogation from the Good Friday Agreement by the British Government. The flying of the Union Jack on this building today is in direct contravention of paragraph5 of the section on "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity" in the agreement. We intend to bring the matter to the notice of the Secretary of State.
If the full impact of this legislation on the Committees had been evident during the negotiations on the departmental structures in December, there would be considerably fewer functions in the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers. The only slight relief to be drawn from this situation is that the argument to locate Finance and Personnel in the centre did not succeed.
Important executive functions such as those of the economic policy and equality units, liaison with other institutions, international relations, legislation progress unit, office of the legislative counsel, public appointments policy, freedom of information, victims, Nolan standards, public service office, machinery of government, emergency planning, women’s issues, policy innovation unit and an Assembly ombudsman are not, as it stands, subject to the scrutiny of a proper statutory committee. That should not be accepted by the Assembly.
I have heard it suggested that issues such as equality and community relations could be covered by non-statutory committees, but those do not have the same powers of scrutiny as statutory committees, and those two functions are only a small part of the remit of the First and Deputy First Ministers.
It has also been suggested that a single statutory committee would be inappropriate for such a range of executive functions. The Assembly will note that the recommendation from the Committee on Standing Orders is not prescriptive. If a number of committees are needed, so be it, but it is in the interests of the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Assembly and the electorate to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of all the executive functions of this administration.
The Committee has not proposed how this matter will be addressed or who will address it. It may require an amendment to the Act. If that is the case, the Assembly should speak with one voice on the issue to ensure that any such amendment is dealt with as a matter of urgency by the British Government.
The Committee has also expressed the view that its work should not end with the adoption of the report, but it may be the best vehicle to ensure that this issue is dealt with satisfactorily. Whatever the decision of the Assembly this is one issue that should not be allowed to go by default, and we intend to return to it as often as necessary until it is resolved.
The adoption of the report from the Committee on Standing Orders, which I support, is another significant step in the preparation of the Assembly for the transfer of powers from Westminster. The way in which the Committee completed its task with every party in the Assembly represented at the table, with many disagreements — sometimes heated but more often in a constructive atmosphere — is firm evidence of the ability of all parties to agree the way forward. It is further progress in the establishment of the institutions that were envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. There is no reason why that task cannot be completed in the near future.
Sinn Féin does not have a problem with MrRobinson’s amendment. The document was produced in a rush so that the Committee could meet the deadline. Perhaps that is an example to both Governments. It was inevitable that there would be minor flaws in the document, and we are not opposed to the tidying up of its text. Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh.

Mr Seamus Close: It was eight months ago that we set out to produce this compendium of Standing Orders for the good governance and conduct of the House. Today, let us hope, we have fulfilled that task.
It would be remiss of me, on behalf of the Alliance Party, if I did not extend my thanks and congratulations to the co-Chairmen for assisting all of us in the business of this difficult task. As MrCobain has said, the devising of Standing Orders and the drawing up of a compendium of Standing Orders is a somewhat tedious and, at times, rather boring task. Thanks to the co-Chairmen’s humour and cohesiveness, we managed to get on with the job and produce a report which, I hope, will receive the support of the House.
I also wish to pay a special tribute to the Clerks, and particularly to MurrayBarnes and DenisArnold, who worked, it is fair to say, far beyond the call of duty. The fact that there are errata is no fault of theirs; rather these are the result of the enormous amount of work that they were endeavouring to do in meeting rather strict and at times rather false deadlines.
While I have not seen the amendments, their large number gives me some cause for concern. I hope that they are of the nit-picking variety, the tidying-up type which, essentially, reflect the fact that we were operating under strict and difficult deadlines. If some commas etcetera have been left out, that is perfectly understandable.
The Committee would obviously have been well-served if MrPeterRobinson had found time to come on to it. The Democratic Unionist Party had five substitutes, as well as their three members, over the 22meetings. They were well-represented. But it would have been very helpful, and it would have facilitated the speedy agreement of the report, if the Member for East Belfast had graced us with his presence on some occasions and helped us not to make so many mistakes. However, since one of the Standing Orders permits me now to use the language of my choice, errare humanum est — we are all human, and we all can make mistakes.
Most of today’s debate will be taken up by Members who were not on the Committee and who will want to have their say — and that is right — but there are a number of issues that I would like to flag up.
The first one is in reference to Standing Order 3(7), which refers to designation. I recognise that this cannot be changed strictly through Standing Orders — we will have an opportunity to do that if we review the Good Friday Agreement — but we have always felt that designation represents the institutionalisation of tribalism and that having it in Standing Orders does not augur well.
We have flagged up the problems with designation before, and we will continue to do so, with the ultimate goal of having removed the necessity for people to be bunched into the little tribes of Unionists, Nationalists or Others. To perpetuate tribalism does not help our society.
The other issue that I want to flag up has already been referred to. It is in relation to Standing Orders42 to 44, which refer to the statutory committees. I was surprised to learn that the functions Department of the Centre will not be, or could not be, subject to statutory scrutiny. It could be that this omission was an oversight when the legislation was being passed, but I question that. Given the number of amendments that were put forward to the Bill on its passage through Westminster, such an obvious and glaring omission suggests a degree of deliberate intent rather than merely oversight.
If I am wrong — and I have already said that to err is human — the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) will join with the rest of the Members and ensure that a change in legislation is brought about quickly so that there can be proper scrutiny by the House of the Department of the Centre.
When we were discussing the various functions to be held by the Department of the Centre it struck some Members that an attempt was being made to suck too many functions into that Department. Efforts should be made either to withdraw some of those functions from the Centre or to bring about a change in the legislation to enable there to be full scrutiny of that Department.
The final issue that I wish to flag up — and I know that some of my Colleagues will be referring to this by way of an amendment — is the number of members on these committees. It is only fair that there should be the widest possible representation of all Members on the committees of the House. Members from four parties will form the Executive, and it is up to the rest of us to scrutinise fully, with the best possible representation, all the functions that are retained by the Executive. For that reason the number of members on the statutory and other committees should be increased, but this will be discussed later.
The overall job was done well. It will stand the House in good stead, and I look forward to the debate on the various amendments when we are able to see them.

Mr Patrick Roche: While congratulating the Committee on Standing Orders, it does seem that an opportunity may have been lost to remedy what is a fundamental fault in the BelfastAgreement. In the agreement we have on the one side the all-Ireland institutions, the North/South Ministerial Council, the implementation bodies and the Intergovernmental Conference. On the other side we have the Assembly, and the link between those two is the Executive.
The North/South Ministerial Council and, indeed, all those institutions appear to have two fundamental features. First, they are embedded in international law. This means that it is absolutely beyond the competence of the Assembly ever to remove them once they are set up. Second, there is something extremely ambiguous about the functioning of these institutions in relation to the Assembly. Paragraph13 of the Belfast Agreement states
"it is understood that the North/South Ministerial Council and the NorthernIreland Assembly are mutually inter-dependent, and that one cannot successfully function without the other."
Whatever that statement means, it does not mean that one cannot function at all without the other. There is a distinction between what someone would perceive as successful functioning and no functioning at all. So this statement does not mean that in the event of the Assembly’s being deadlocked or collapsing the institutions would cease to function. That raises the issue of what control the Assembly can have over the all-Ireland dimension of the agreement in the event of these institutions being established and, in particular, in the event of their starting to function.
The key issue is what control the Assembly has over the Executive, because the Executive is the link between the Assembly and the all-Ireland institutions. There are two points of contact between the Assembly and the Executive in terms of control. One of them is the capacity of the Assembly to vote annually on a programme of government presented by the Executive, and the other potential area of control is through the statutory committees. The problem with the Standing Orders is that they specify that the statutory committees are simply to advise and assist each Minister. In other words, they are to be as weak as they possibly can be.
Once this mechanism is up and running, there will be a fault line between the Assembly and the all-Ireland institutions that means that the Assembly will have virtually no control over the all-Ireland aspect of the agreement, and to some extent the opportunity to remedy that situation has been entirely lost by the Committee.

Ms Jane Morrice: I commend the report and the work of the joint Chairmen — FredCobain and DenisHaughey — and our very capable Clerks.
A two-day or three-day debate on Standing Orders would not inspire the most intrepid political scientist, let alone our friends in journalism. However, it is important that they stop and read between the lines. This simple, unassuming report is, in fact, a document of tremendous significance as it outlines the rules and regulations that will govern the making or the breaking of new laws in Northern Ireland. The report outlines the procedures to be followed to guarantee that every piece of legislation is in accordance with anti-discrimination, equality and human-rights legislation.
These Standing Orders exist to ensure that every check is balanced and that every balance is checked. It is simply the translation of the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act into the conduct of business on the Floor of the House.
However, there is an important difference. These Standing Orders were agreed by representatives from every political party in the Assembly. In fact, the Standing Orders Committee is possibly the best example so far of all parties working together for the common good. Unionists, Nationalists, Loyalists, Republicans and "Others" sat side by side on the Committee, and together they wrote, rubbed out and rewrote the rules for the operation of the Assembly.

Mr Norman Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. It should be on record that the Northern Ireland Unionist Party did not have a member on that Committee. It had only observer status.

Lord Alderdice: That is noted.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank MrBoyd for that point of order.
Things started to look good from the outset when it was agreed that the UUP and the SDLP should jointly chair the meetings. At almost every meeting there was an obvious sense of people listening to and learning from each other. It surprised the Committee that political adversaries backed each other on several occasions. It has already been mentioned that there was only one occasion on which the deliberations became uncomfortably tense. That was at the second last meeting, about a week ago, when the sensitive issue of language was broached. At the last and possibly the best meeting, there was a very definite sense of compromise and agreement on the need to move forward.
This is our rule book. MrCobain has said that we got here by looking at what happens in Parliaments in London, Dublin and Strasbourg and at what happened in the last parliamentary body in Northern Ireland and by choosing the bits that suited us best. We have in this rule book the potential for a thoroughly modern Assembly. It will place human rights and equality at the very top of the agenda, and cronyism at the very bottom. It will be open and transparent and will allow for a system of government which will be a role model for other Parliaments.
One great achievement, of which we in the Women’s Coalition can feel proud, is the decision to end sittings at 6.00pm. I was, however, disappointed to learn this morning that a decision could be made to change that, because of the task that is before us, for this sitting. The reason we decided to end sittings at 6.00pm was that this would represent a family-friendly working day. The problems that have been caused in other Parliaments by the need for Members to stay for late sittings or overnight sittings have been obvious. This applies not just to women with families but also to men with families. We can leave at 6.00pm and get home to our families, which is very important. In fact, I understand that the Scottish Parliament will be following our lead in this respect.
I am also especially pleased on International Women’s Day — and let me repeat, for Members who may not have heard, that today is International Women’s Day — to see that the language of the Standing Orders exhibits gender consciousness through the use of "he/she" and "his/her". I am also pleased to note that Members exhibit a similar consciousness when they are speaking in the Chamber.
I have referred to the tremendous potential which the Assembly has to create a unique system of coalition government, which could be the envy of the world. However, it must be based on the principle of inclusion, which means including the smaller parties as well as the larger ones. Those of us in the smaller parties have demonstrated that we are ready to roll our sleeves up and work hard. We should not be squeezed out of Committees to which we can make a valuable contribution by way of constructive opposition and as another voice that adds breadth to their deliberations.
MrCobain, in his opening remarks, said that he felt that the concerns of smaller parties had been fairly considered. However, we in the Women’s Coalition still have some concerns about this, some of which have already been raised by other Members. Standing Orders 43 to 45 refer to the principle of proportionality in the make-up of Committees which will enable them to reflect party strengths in the Assembly. However, if these Committees are to have only 11members, this will not happen. Number 23(2)(b) of the draft additional Initial Standing Orders drawn up by the Secretary of State says that proportionality will apply to "each Committee" rather than to "all Committees", as set out in these Standing Orders. MrClose has said that this matter will be discussed further. Inclusiveness must apply to everyone.
When the Assembly approves this report we will be ready to open for business. The foundations have been laid, and the bricks and mortar are in place. We will have our rule book, and we will be ready, at last, to roll up our sleeves and start working. We have fulfilled our legal obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. It is now up to us to fulfil our moral obligations to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Robert McCartney: One of the key issues, as identified by a number of Members, is the relationship that will exist between the Assembly and the Executive. It is very evident from its behaviour that another Executive is becoming increasingly indifferent to the views of Parliament and that the influence which can be exercised by elected representatives on the Government is diminishing. Indeed, it has almost become a habit for the Government to release to the media what they intend to do before bringing it to the House of Commons. I therefore share the views and anxieties expressed by some Members about the control, if any, which the Assembly can exercise over the Executive.
From the earliest meetings of the Standing Orders Committee, which I attended, I made it evident that there should be a strong committee system to control, insofar as it can be controlled, the work of the Executive. That is particularly so when one realises that the composition of the Executive in the Assembly is rather different from that in most democracies.
We have consensual arrangements here. Consensual arrangements have certain benefits, and they have particular benefits to those who actually exercise power under those arrangements. Put bluntly, that power will be exercised by the larger parties, particularly the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP, who will have a majority of members on the Executive. Other parties, such as the DUP and SinnFéin, will have a smaller membership. What is very important is that the activities of the Executive can be controlled — and controlled effectively.
I therefore have a degree of sympathy with the arguments that have been put forward for a committee to control the activities of the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). These Ministers will have a great deal of power outside the remit of the specific statutory Committees. It will be a power over a broad range of issues of important and extreme significance, yet, in formal terms, there is no committee to which these Ministers will be directly accountable. I appreciate that there is no statutory provision for such a committee and that therefore it was not within the remit of the Standing Orders Committee to create a committee specifically charged with the supervision and control of the offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers.
I also appreciate that, subject to that omission, it was necessary for the Standing Orders Committee to make whatever arrangements it could for the control of the powers exercised by the First and Deputy First Ministers. Those Ministers represent the two largest parties, and Members must avoid, in an arrangement which is supposed to be a consensual one for the exercise of power, power being effectively exercised by the two largest parties without a formal means of control.
This principle applies whether one is a Nationalist or a Unionist, though doubtless Nationalists would want different objectives controlled than Unionists. MrRoche has quite properly pointed out some of his worries and anxieties, which I share, about the Executive’s role as the link between the Assembly and cross-border bodies and about the general influence by another independent sovereign state on the internal governance of Northern Ireland. Those are very important matters and were quite properly addressed.
I also have a deal of sympathy with the views expressed by SinnFéin about the absence of a specific statutory committee. Doubtless it would have very different objectives from those which I share with the pro-Union community, but the essential element that Members must ensure is that the Executive come under the control of the Assembly. The Executive must be fully accountable to the Assembly, even if it is engaged in activities considered to be inimical to the objectives of the pro-Union community or to those of a more extreme Nationalist view. It must be under control. I share the view, which has been expressed by some Members, that there should be some change in the legislation to ensure this element of control over the two Ministers who will, in effect, exercise more individual power than anyone else.
It is a curious anomaly that even the power of junior Ministers — and I am talking not about juniorMinisters within the definition of the Act, whom I once referred to irreverently as the ministerial piglets, but about Ministers who will be in charge of the Departments — will be much more limited than those of the First and Deputy First Ministers.
Presumably the First and Deputy First Ministers — representatives of the largest parties — will have the greatest overall input into the preparation of the annual policy document which the Assembly will subsequently be required to ratify as the Executive’s policy objectives and functions for that year. They will be at the centre of power.
In terms of a wheel with 10 spokes, all the Ministries will be accountable down to the central hub, which will be the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers. As the hub of that governmental wheel, they will control the office which is in touch with all of those Ministries, yet that hub will not be subject to any statutory committee, upon which all parties should have representatives, that could have a direct input and exercise direct control over what those Ministers are doing.
In terms of the matters that were raised by Assemblyman Roche, it seems that the area, functions and powers of the North/South Ministerial Council and of the implementation bodies are necessarily painted in rather vague terms. I was amazed to hear the First Minister (Designate), on the radio programme ‘Inside Politics’, refer to me, saying "Poor Bob does not seem to realise that international treaties are not written in plain language." MrTrimble ought to know, because if ever there was an exponent of obscure and obscurantist language, of circumlocution, of fudge, of any form of language that is particularly utilised to ensure that his listeners have not got a damned clue about what he is talking about, it is the FirstMinister (Designate).
A proposal to set up a committee to ensure that the gobbledegook of the First Minister (Designate) is analysed and examined and turned into plain language that not only the Assembly but the entire electorate of Northern Ireland can understand would be well worth implementing. For the benefit of all parties, whether Republican, Nationalist, Unionist or Loyalist, the Assembly should have a degree of control by way of a strong central committee over the activities of those who will exercise more power than anyone else.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I join other Members in paying tribute to the work of those who have been instrumental in getting the Committee’s work to its present stage.

Mr Robert McCartney: I omitted to express my sincere praise and commendation for the two Chairmen of this Standing Orders Committee, whose behaviour at the meetings at which I was present was absolutely exemplary.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Everybody on the Committee agrees that a tremendous amount of work was carried out, not just by its members, but also by MrDenisArnold and MrMurrayBarnes. I am happy to join my Colleagues in paying tribute to them and also to the joint Chairmen, who guided the Committee. I also want to pay tribute to my party Colleagues who, on occasions, substituted for some of us who could not attend — people such as MrSammyWilson, MrJimWells, MrMarkRobinson, MrPaulBerry and MrEdwinPoots. They made a considerable contribution to the Committee, and I thank them.
As the joint Chairman said in his introduction, the original intention was that we should report by 14September last year. We always thought that this was somewhat optimistic and, as events have turned out, meeting even today’s deadline was a bit of a rush, although the interim report, issued on 26October, dealt with some of the issues contained in the final report. It must be stressed — as it was by the joint Chairman — that not all the issues that the Committee spent much of its time on eventually ended up in Standing Orders. Some ended up in the minutes, some in notes which will accompany the Standing Orders —

A Member: Some ended up in the bin.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Indeed.
An enormous amount of work was done, not all of which is reflected in these documents we have before us. We have had to deal with the fact that the Northern Ireland Bill was going through its various stages in Parliament at the same time as we were trying to draw up Standing Orders. There was a period when we were not sure what the legislation would say about the Standing Orders. This lead to the suspension of the work of the Committee in its plenary form, although officials carried on working behind the scenes. That was one reason why the Committee was not able to progress its work as quickly as some of us would have liked.
The Committee also had to deal with additional Initial Standing Orders, sent by the Secretary of State. At the beginning of September, we spent some time debating the draft additional Initial Standing Orders, and we returned them to the Secretary of State. She commented on our recommendations, but we have not heard anything about those additional Standing Orders since. Some of us asked what had happened to them. We queried why, at a crucial time in its work, the Committee was burdened with having to deal with these additional Standing Orders when nothing ever came of them, but to this day, the Secretary of State has not given the Committee a satisfactory answer.
We will be dealing with the Committee’s work section by section. There will be specific amendments, and we can, at that time, deal with some of the minutiae and some of the individual Standing Orders as they come along.
I want to make some general points about the more significant issues. MrClose mentioned the issue of changes in designation. We had this debate, I think, at the 26October Assembly meeting. MrClose still maintains that it is a nonsense to have people divided up into tribes — Unionists, Nationalists and Others. He has argued this point in Committee. The difficulty for him, of course, is that he and his party signed up to this designation, this division of people into tribes, under the terms of the agreement.
As we tried to point out on a number of occasions, it was a bit late expecting the Standing Orders Committee to argue about this when the Member had already agreed that tribalism should be enshrined in the Belfast Agreement and, therefore, in the Act itself. There was nothing we could do about it, and the reality is that we now have a system of voting which ensures that we have these designated blocks for ever within the lifetime of the Assembly — Unionist, Nationalist and Other. That is the way in which votes will be taken on key issues.
The Initial Standing Orders which we were given by the Secretary of State included a provision to enable Members to jump from one designation to another — from Unionist to Nationalist and then the following week, if Members so decided, to Other and then back to Nationalist or Unionist. Some Members actually argued in the Committee that we should continue with that — astounding though it may seem.
I am glad that common sense prevailed and that Standing Orders say that while it is possible for someone to change once during the term of the Assembly, it will be once and once only. There will be none of the nonsense that was intended by the Secretary of State and encouraged by some parties here of Members being able to change their designation with seven days’ notice in order to influence a vote in the House. We were successful in deleting that piece of nonsense from the Standing Orders.
The matter of language raised its head in the Committee on numerous occasions, and we had exchanges on this subject at the meeting on 26October. No special recognition is now given in the Standing Orders to any foreign language that may be used in the Chamber. The Standing Orders provide for Members to speak in any language other than English should they wish to do so, but there is no provision for translation, simultaneous or otherwise, and no special recognition or place is given to any particular foreign language.
I thought that the purpose of debate was to try to influence how other Members vote or think by having one’s voice heard and opinions expressed. But if some Members are so discourteous that they want to speak in a foreign language that others do not understand, that is a matter for them. If they want to waste their time in that way, that is a matter entirely for them.
MsMorrice said that she was glad that the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition had achieved a family-friendly time for sittings: 10.00am to 6.30pm. However, I am disappointed that it is a woman Secretary of State who has told the House to meet until 10.00pm both today and tomorrow in order to get through its business. I am sure that the NorthernIreland Women’s Coalition will be taking this up with the Secretary of State, and I hope that they will be as vehement in raising that with her as they are about other issues.
As I understand it, however, this was not an issue. Members from other parties will agree that this was something that found broad agreement among all parties. We all agreed that we should have a sitting arrangement which would be family-friendly and family-orientated — this was not something that just the NorthernIreland Women’s Coalition wanted. Indeed, the only dissenting voice on this, as reported by the joint Chairman, was that of the Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party, who proposed that the Assembly meet at 2.30pm each Monday and finish at 10.00pm. I am glad to say that the Committee unanimously rejected that view. I do not know whether there is to be an amendment on this or not, but we will wait and see.
A problem has arisen regarding the scrutiny of statutory committees of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and this has caused the Committee a great deal of concern. I will not rehearse all the arguments. I agree with the arguments that other Members have made about the importance of this issue. It is absolutely unacceptable that the important executive functions of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the junior Ministers will not be subject to scrutiny by the appropriate statutory Committee. This is a very significant matter. We must address it, and one of MrRobinson’s amendments does just that. The Assembly will have an opportunity to do something about this later in the debate.
There are other issues that I could raise, but I will reserve some of my comments until later when we deal with some of these amendments in detail.

Mr Jim Wells: Mr Initial Presiding Officer — I hope within the next few days to be able to address you as MrSpeaker — I was not a member of the Standing Orders Committee, but, because of the busy nature of the work that the three Members from my party had to attend to, I attended as a substitute on no fewer than sixoccasions. Indeed, so regular was my attendance that one set of minutes recorded me as a member.
Like many others I am alarmed that the legislation does not enable the Standing Orders Committee to establish a statutory scrutiny committee to examine the powers exercised by the First and the Deputy First Ministers. I am extremely suspicious about how this happened because, while the Standing Orders Committee was meeting, a huge raft of new powers were added to that Office, and it would be total negation of democracy if there were not some controls and checks on that work. There is unanimity in the House on this: if the rights of all parties and the rights of all minorities are to be protected, there must be a brake on the powers, on the almost absolute powers on some very important matters, of the First and the Deputy First Ministers.
The message from the Assembly to the Secretary of State this morning is that new legislation is required on this crucial issue. It is no good saying that we can establish a committee if that committee does not have the power to require the presentation of papers or to request the First and the Deputy First Ministers to come forward and answer questions. It is really a bit of a sham. We must have the same powers as the statutory committees have over the Office.

A Member: Reading?

Mr Jim Wells: I am certainly not reading.
I wish to speak on an issue which I have raised before —the speeches in the Assembly. I am glad to note that under Standing Order17 this is addressed, but I think it is worth rehearsing the points that I made in the Committee. The present way in which we deal with speeches is strangling this body as a debating Chamber. A Member, unless he is proposing a motion, has 10minutes in which to speak. The crucial point is that interventions from anyone on the Floor of House are included in that 10minutes. The result is that Members are encouraged to get the head down and rattle through their speeches at 100miles per hour because they have to try to squeeze in the maximum amount of material they can in the 10minutes.
I got a lot of flak a few weeks ago when I suggested that people glanced at their notes while they were speaking. An all-party delegation came to me and told me that my remark was totally unacceptable, that it was scurrilous, and I was asked to apologise. If I caused offence, I apologise. I now realise that people glanced at their notes not to read them but to try to get as much material as possible into 10minutes. Benefiting from this were the ‘Mourne Observer’, the ‘Strabane Weekly News’ and ‘The Londonderry Sentinel’ because as soon as a speech is made, the text is rushed by fax machine to the local papers. I am confident that if I miss a speech in the House I will always pick it up in the local papers.
The problem with the 10-minute rule is that people are encouraged to rattle through their speeches at great speed and, because interventions are included in their time, there is no incentive for them to give way. Why would anyone give way, although I always do? Members will not give way because they will lose precious time —

Mr Alban Maginness: One of the problems about reading or giving a prepared speech, as opposed to an extempore speech, is that the reporters and journalists who cover the Assembly do not write down what is said. They rely on scripts. Some of the Member’s remarks should be aimed at the media’s reporting of the Assembly rather than at individual Members.
12.00

Mr Jim Wells: That is a valid point. One solution to that problem would be to cut the communication links to the rooms that the media have in this building and force them to sit in the Press Gallery and listen to the debates. A speech never seems as good in cold print as it did on the Floor of the House.
The hon Member for East Belfast, SammyWilson, is one of the best speakers in this Chamber. Others are, of course, DrPaisley, PeterRobinson, NigelDodds, GregoryCampbell — to name a few. [Interruption] I certainly do not fall into that category.
We are blessed with some Members who speak outstandingly well, but in cold print in Hansard their speeches do not read as well as one typed by a research assistant who dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s.
This House must act as a debating chamber, where Ministers and Committee Chairmen stand up and are called to account by the Members. If we do not allow interventions during speeches all we will get is a series of monologues. We might as well stand out in the corridor and hand our speeches to the press. There is nothing to be gained by standing and reading 10minutes of prepared text at great speed.
I proposed in the Committee — and I hope it will become the policy of this Assembly — that an intervention by someone not from the Member’s own party should not be included in the 10minutes and that an intervention by someone from his own party should. I suggested this because there could be an abuse of the situation — for instance, someone representing the DUP could allow 19 interventions.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Surely not.

Mr Jim Wells: It could happen, and it would be abuse. If that is allowed to happen that Member could, effectively, have a 29- or 39-minute speech, which would not be acceptable. I suggested in the Committee that interventions, no matter who they are from, be limited to one minute. Any point raised can be made in that time. If it comes from an opponent it does not count, if it comes from someone in the Member’s own party it does count.

Mr Peter Robinson: There is a standard which is used practically in the House of Commons that it is not an intervention unless it is short. A minute would be far too long for an intervention, as mine has proved.

Mr Jim Wells: I bow to the greater experience of the hon Member for East Belfast. I thought when I included him among the best speakers in the House he would have let me have an easy ride, but he has not.
The point is that it is a maximum of one minute. Some of the highlights of Westminster parliamentary debate have been the cutting intervention which have sometimes floored the argument of an opponent, completely smashed it, or enabled the Member speaking to consolidate his argument. We do not want to go down the road of the Dáil.
Occasionally when my TV aerial turns the wrong way and I pick up RTE I have noticed Members in the Dáil reading their speeches. The former Prime Minister, AlbertReynolds was one of the worst examples of this. He would get a sheet of paper, put his head down and read very fast in a totally unintelligible accent. We do not want our Chamber to turn into that. We want to be much better than the Dáil. We should have the same standards as Westminster where some of the best debates ever recorded have occurred. People like MichaelFoot, TamDalyell, TonyBanks, the Minister for Sport, are able, with a cutting intervention —

A Member: Cecil Walker.

Mr Jim Wells: And CecilWalker. They are able with a cutting intervention to completely wrong foot their opponent.
The point is that no one listens to a speech that is read. However, a speech that is not read is often listened to. Let us turn this into a debating chamber so that people can turn on their television sets, see this Chamber and say "Those people that we elected are debating. There is cut and thrust. They are worthy of election. They are not simply forced to read."

Lord Alderdice: Amendment No. 1 on the marshalled list, standing in the name of MrPeterRobinson: moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: Moved.

Lord Alderdice: This amendment, if carried, would affect Standing Orders and there therefore has to be a cross-community vote. In respect of the amendment, if there are no dissenting voices I will take that as giving cross-community approval, but when we come to the vote on the motion that we take note of the report as a whole, I will have to take a full cross-community vote.
Question

Mr Denis Haughey: MrInitial Presiding Officer, is it your intention to allow summation?

Lord Alderdice: If you wish. That may be taken now.

Mr Denis Haughey: I want to refer to a few of the things that were said.

Lord Alderdice: I will put the main question after that.

Mr Denis Haughey: I cannot speak for the Committee, but I will try to reflect the kind of consensus that we achieved. Members will have to speak for themselves if they differ from that. I can only make personal observations on the matters raised this morning.
I would like to pay tribute to FredCobain, DenisArnold and MurrayBarnes and, indeed, to the members of the Committee. The working of the Standing Orders Committee has been an example of what can be achieved when people put their best efforts towards achieving consensus.
To refer to the points raised by MrPeterRobinson, the amendment which he put down and which has just been carried is perfectly sensible and not contentious. He referred to the incorporation of relevant sections from the Act and the agreement into a consolidated volume of Standing Orders. Again, a perfectly sensible and appropriate suggestion which, I imagine, we will follow up.
In relation to the errata which were circulated, he is proposing that they should be agreed as a single amendment. That is also sensible. I am not entirely sure that it is necessary, since the errata are part of the Standing Orders agreed in the Committee and reported to the House. However, this will put the matter beyond any doubt and is not unduly burdensome.
Mr Murphy raised the matter of the scrutiny of the Department of the Centre, and a number of other Members subsequently referred to the matter. Because of the nature of the Act, this is an extremely complicated matter which needs careful consideration. The Standing Orders Committee has properly reported that this issue gave rise to concern, and the Assembly needs to look at it. The point raised by MrMurphy about flags on this Building is not a matter for the Standing Orders Committee, and that was one of the things we rushed to agree at the very beginning.
Mr Close also raised the issue of the scrutiny of the Department of the Centre. I should point out to MrClose that amendments to the Bill were taken in the House of Lords. Perhaps he might look within his own party for procedures for dealing with that. My party unfortunately cannot deal with the House of Lords.
Mr Roche suggested that Standing Orders should provide the Assembly with a means of controlling North/South bodies. No doubt he has put down an amendment to that effect, and the House will have an opportunity to consider it.
MsMorrice raised the question of gender consciousness. A proper appreciation of gender consciousness is, I think, reflected throughout this report. Where it is not, the report can be properly amended under the procedure which has now been adopted subsequent to MrRobinson’s amendment.
MsMorrice also raised the question of the concerns of the smaller parties, particularly in relation to the composition of Committees. I have to say that strict proportionality could be achieved only if every Member were a member of every Committee. Other than that, it is a question of trying to get proportionality in a manageable way within each Committee. In relation to the statutory Committees it would be an extreme burden, particularly upon the larger parties, if membership of those Committees were to reach a point where the smaller parties would be able to cover every standing Committee. It just would not be possible.
A membership of 11, which was generally agreed in the Committee, will give every Member a fair opportunity, insofar as it is possible, to be a member of a Committee.
MrMcCartney raised the question of the control of the Executive, and he referred to the situation in the House of Commons by way of illustrating his point. However, the situation here will be different in that, first of all, we will have a Committee system which will give a certain degree of control of the Executive, and the Executive Committee itself will give a degree of control over the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers. The Committee did not find that entirely satisfactory, and this is something that we will have to come back to.
I should also say that, obviously, the First and Deputy First Ministers would have to have won the confidence of their own parties in respect of any proposals they intended to make; they would also have to have won the support of the House. So the First and Deputy First Ministers will not be free agents, able to conduct business as they please; they will have to have the support and confidence of the House.
I would like to thank NigelDodds for his kind remarks, particularly in relation to DenisArnold and MurrayBarnes, whose work has been outstanding. The House owes them a debt of gratitude.
MrDodds also referred to the additional Initial Standing Orders which the Committee looked at but which disappeared — I think there will be more about that shortly.
In relation to the parallel-consent requirement, I believe that that flows naturally from the agreement, and I can deal only with the Standing Orders aspect of that. I think the Standing Orders we have adopted properly reflect what was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement.
If, in his remarks about foreign languages, MrDodds intended to imply that Irish is a foreign language for all Members, I would regard that as unfortunate. Obviously it is not, and if he did intend to imply that, he is making foreigners out of a great many Members.
NigelDodds also raised the question of the functions of junior Ministers and the need for their functions to be scrutinised. He pointed out that Committees set up by the Assembly itself will not necessarily have the same powers as the departmental Committees. We need to look at that in some detail and come up with proposals which can be put before the House.
JimWells raised the question of extempore speaking in the House, and, in a remarkable tour de force, covered the whole question of speaking from notes and the impact of time limitation on speeches. Over a period of time, convention and usage will lead to a much more satisfactory situation than the one that has arisen from time to time when Members get up and read from prepared scripts. I do not regard that as particularly satisfactory, but you will remember, MrInitial Presiding Officer, that I and the other joint Chairman, Fred Cobain, raised this matter with you. It is extremely difficult to know how one could legislate for that in Standing Orders.
However, I promise not to breathe a word to anyone — and I think everybody will undertake to do the same— about MrWells listening to RTE.
Main Question, as amended, put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 84; (Nationalist 31, Unionist 47, Other 6); Noes 0.
AYES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Dr Joe Hendron, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Donovan McClelland, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O’Connor, Ms Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsey, Ms Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
Dr Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, Rev William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Rt Hon David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Other
Mrs Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Ms Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.
NOES
None.

Lord Alderdice: Eighty-four Members voted for the motion, and none against. This being a majority of Unionists, a majority of Nationalists and the majority of the Assembly as a whole, the motion is overwhelmingly carried.
Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
This Assembly takes note of the report by the Committee on Standing Orders and further notes that the Standing Orders, once approved by the Assembly, shall be renumbered where necessary, punctuated and proofed to ensure consistent language.

Lord Alderdice: It was my intention, as usual, to suspend the sitting at this point until 2.00pm, but I must seek some guidance from the House because Members have not yet received the marshalled list of amendments. The staff are still working to put them in proper order, and I am advised that they will be available by 1.00pm. Suspensions can only be by leave of the Assembly, so we must all agree on whether we wish to suspend the sitting until 2.00pm or perhaps until 2.30pm or to 3.00pm. The later time would provide an opportunity to study the 87amendments in some detail. Larger parties in particular may be able to give guidance to their members.

Mr Robert McCartney: I propose that we suspend the sitting until 2.30pm. It is preferable that the entire House have copies of the amendments and have at least half an hour to consider them. That would enable us to continue without the interruption of distributing material.

Mr Eddie McGrady: We will not have the 87amendments until 1.00pm. Some of us eat lunch, and I suggest that at least another hour up to 3.00pm would be required to do any sort of justice to understanding the 87amendments, some of which may be quite complex. I suggest suspending the sitting until 3.00pm.

Mr Peter Robinson: The House should bear in mind the fact that additional time at this stage will have to be added at some other stage. It should be possible for officials to provide within the next 15minutes or 30minutes a marshalled list of the amendments for the first six Standing Orders. While we are proceeding with those they can prepare the rest. If that were done we could recommence at 2.00pm.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I regret to say that I disagree with MrMcGrady. Waiting until 3.00pm would lose too much time. I would be quite comfortable with 2.00 or 2.30.
If Mr Robinson’s suggestion can be progressed, 2.00pm is feasible. If not, and we are waiting for the entire marshalled list, we will have to go with MrMcCartney’s position. However, waiting until 3.00pm would leave us desperately short of time.

Lord Alderdice: It should be possible to have the full list of marshalled amendments within the next half-hour. Having put them all down, the staff have to proof read them. That is time consuming but it is virtually complete. The printing will take a little time. It should be available to Members by 1o’clock.

Mr Eddie McGrady: With regard to saving time, I accept the points made by the Member for East Belfast and by MrTrimble. Some 70 of the 87 amendments are in MrRobinson’s name and, although he already knows what they are about, we have no knowledge of them whatever. That is a substantial advantage. I am prepared to withdraw my proposition on the clear understanding that should the complexity of the amendments make it awkward for my party fully to assess their potential, I will move for a further adjournment.

Mr David Ervine: If MrRobinson’s proposal is accepted we will have the first six Standing Orders to go on with. As we are debating those six, how can I as a member of a small party assess the future amendments that we will be debating? MrMcGrady’s suggestion of 3o’clock is eminently sensible.

Lord Alderdice: We have several propositions. I need to seek the leave of the Assembly and there must be agreement or there will be no break for lunch. That would be a tragedy.
I propose that the sitting be suspended until 2.30pm. The marshalled list of amendments should be available by 1.00pm, and if at any point in the consideration of the Standing Orders and the amendments it is clear that there is a problem about complexity or other matters, I will accept requests for adjournments of up to 15 minutes in respect of any particular problem.
The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 12.33pm until 2.30 pm.

Mr Eddie McGrady: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. My original proposal that the sitting be suspended until 3.00pm, which was rejected, was based on the premise that we would receive the list of amendments by 1.00pm. In fact, we did not receive details of the amendments until 2.05 or 2.10 — an hour later. I therefore request a further suspension of at least 30 minutes to give us a chance to study the list. Given that we have 87fairly complex amendments, even that time may not be sufficient.

Lord Alderdice: Details of the groupings of amendments are available in the Rotunda, though many Members may not yet have seen them.
I ask for the Assembly’s agreement to a further suspension of 30minutes, as proposed by MrMcGrady.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I would like to assure MrMcGrady that most of the amendments are of a nit-picking nature or relate to minor textual changes. We should be able to work our way through them fairly quickly.
The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 2.31pm until 3.01 pm

Lord Alderdice: I trust that all Members have now received the marshalled list of amendments and the groups. The amendments are numbered in the order in which they were received by the Business Office, but they are marshalled in the order in which they relate to the Standing Orders. The first amendment on the list is number 42, and it comes first because it relates to Standing Order 3(5) and there are no amendments in relation to Standing Order 1 or2. The marshalled list will be worked through in the order that is shown, albeit the numbers of the amendments refer to when they were received by the Business Office.

Mr Peter Robinson: Further to that ruling, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I thought that you might have more time to consider the matter of the errata. You say that Standing Orders 1 and 2 have no amendments attached to them, but they do under the errata. Standing Order2 has a change, but if it is covered by the amendment that was made part of the substantive motion this morning, I think Members could accept it as having been passed — depending on your ruling.

Lord Alderdice: I am content to rule that the amendment that was passed in respect of item 3 will subsume all those matters that are referred to in the errata, which were supplied with the Committee’s report. All the amendments in the errata will therefore be accepted and actioned on the basis of the amendment to item 3.
The groupings of amendments, which Members have received, refer to the groups of Standing Orders in the compendium. I have not sought to produce any new groupings but have simply taken the sections in the compendium and grouped the amendments so that they relate to the groups of Standing Orders. They are ordered in relation to the individual Standing Orders.
Group 1 covers the first six Standing Orders relating to preliminary arrangements. The amendments which relate to those are amendments 42, 85A, 85B, 41, 40, 38 and 39, and they form the first group on the list of groupings of amendments. Any Member not having a list of groupings can obtain a copy from the Doorkeepers in the rotunda.
When we debate each group of amendments which refers to the group of Standing Orders, the proposers of amendments should speak in the order called. I would request proposers to refer to as many amendments as possible — in some cases it might be possible to refer to all of the amendments in that group. For example, MrRobinson, in addressing group one, will speak first to amendment42, but it may also be possible for him to deal with amendments 41, 40, 38 and 39, or to as many of them as is possible. MrNeeson, or one of the other proposers may speak to both 85A and 85B if it is possible for them to do so.
I do not rule that Members must address all of the amendments in a group. While that may be possible in group one it is very unlikely that it will be possible in group two or in the group of amendments that relate to the Standing Orders of Committees, where there are very substantial numbers of amendments. It would simply not be possible to deal with those within the 10minutes.

Mr Peter Robinson: What is the consequence of your suggestion if Members attempt to do that and fail? Does it mean that they will not be able to speak to their own amendments?

Lord Alderdice: If Members feel that they can speak to the amendment for which they are called at that point and also to two or three other amendments, which may not be substantive amendments, within the 10minutes, which is the limit to which they can speak at any one point, then so be it. If it is not possible for the Member to deal with it then it would be better if they stood down at that point and were then called later when the other amendment comes up. If I do not deal with it in that fairly flexible way we will find ourselves having a debate on each of 87amendments, which is not a helpful way to proceed.
Conversely, it would be just as unhelpful if Members only had 10minutes to deal with all of the amendments in a particular group. In the case of some Members, particularly the Member who has raised the question, and in respect of a number of the groups, that would clearly be unsatisfactory and unfair.
I am trying to encourage Members to get as much as they can into each speech. It is to be hoped that we will deal with things in a thoughtful and flexible manner.
Before putting the Question on any Standing Order where there is an amendment I will ask "Is the amendment moved or not moved?" This will give Members an opportunity to treat their amendment as a probing amendment or to be influenced by the tenor of the debate and to either to withdraw or not move their amendment.
If the amendment is moved and there is any dissent I will have no option but to let the House divide so that we can measure the level of cross-community support. It is very difficult to do anything else if dissent is expressed at the point where an amendment, or indeed a Standing Order, is being voted upon.
I intend to try to enable the Assembly to have completed the approval and consideration of the Standing Orders and amendments up to and including those that relate to ministerial appointments, that is, up to and including Standing Order41, before suspending today’s proceedings and resuming at 10.30am tomorrow. We will then have dealt with about half of the Standing Orders and amendments. I trust that that will encourage us to proceed as best we can. The sooner we get that far along the road the sooner we can suspend today’s sitting.
Preliminary Arrangements

Lord Alderdice: We shall begin by dealing with the amendments to Standing Orders1 to6.
The first amendment is No42, which stands in the name of MrPeterRobinson.

Mr Peter Robinson: Amendment No42 is as follows: In Standing Order 3(5) after "Chamber" insert "during sitting days".
I am not going to waste any time on dealing with what are simply tidying-up amendments. They stand on their own feet.
I assume that the amendment simply states what was intended by the Standing Order. The Standing Orders regulate the Assembly’s life not just when it is sitting, but when it is not sitting, and therefore the present terms of paragraph 5 could be construed to mean that the Roll of Members is in the Chamber all the time. There are visitors to the building, and we do not want other people signing the Roll. It might be a good idea to have it taken away between sittings. This is a straightforward simple tidying-up amendment.
Amendment No85B in the name of MrNeeson contains a mistake. It was probably correct when it was received by the Business Office. I assume that "other" should be "Other" as in the legislation. The effect is to suggest that any other designation can be entered and that, of course, is not what the agreement proposed. It is not what the Act requires, and I suspect that we would be acting outside our legal competence.

Mr David Ford: Since the Member has specifically raised the issue, may I make it clear that in the current draft order, the word "Other" appears in quotation marks. Our amendment seeks to remove the capital O and the quotation marks.

Mr Peter Robinson: That presents a difficulty because that is not what is stated. There are two mistakes here, and there are errors in other amendments. We shall point them out as each amendment is moved. I saw at least two in our amendments. Amendment No41 contains mistakes that were not there originally. It requires the notification to be in writing, which I suspect will be a safeguard for the Speaker or any subsequent Speaker.
Amendment No40 indicates the practice of the Assembly to date. Members may change their affiliation at any time, and if they do so they must give seven days’ notification. It puts into our Standing Orders what has been our practice. It is particularly important to do that because elsewhere in the Standing Order there is reference to the identity designation and a time period of 30days. There might have been a tendency to assume that the party affiliation should follow the same timescale. The amendment makes it clear that the period of seven days that we have applied thus far would continue to apply.
The other two amendments relate to the position of the Speaker. They are probing amendments if either of the joint Chairmen or any member of the Committee wanted to report on the thinking of the Committee on the issue. My reading of the Standing Orders is that only on the first day of the sitting is it designated that the Speaker, if returned, shall be in the Chair. In his absence there can be a Deputy Speaker or the eldest Member, and there will always be such a person. But they will act only for the business to be transacted in the first day, and the Standing Order does not show a continuing role.
There may be assumptions about that, and the amendment seeks to remove them and make the provisions more solid. If we cannot agree on the election of a Speaker, we can elect a Deputy Speaker or Speakers and they, in turn or the Deputy Speaker could take the Chair until a Speaker is elected. If we cannot elect either a Deputy Speaker or a Speaker, we are down to the eldest Member. Perhaps I may put your mind as ease, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, by saying that those circumstances relate to the procedure at the first meeting of a new Assembly. We are dealing with what happens after the next election.
It is necessary that we be fairly clear about the procedures. We do not have a satisfactory set of circumstances at present. If we do not define the procedures clearly we could have a less satisfactory set of circumstances where we could not elect a Speaker and would have no procedure to deal with the business that the Speaker would transact, apart from presiding over Assembly sittings. I think that that covers everything in the first section. Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I am looking for assurance. If that is the case, I will formally move the first amendment.

Lord Alderdice: Mr Sean Neeson.

Lord Alderdice: MrFord will speak on Mr Neeson’s behalf.

Mr David Ford: I gave my name this morning, but I suspect that it has been lost among all the paperwork.
I want to refer briefly to the amendments which stand in the name of MrPRobinson, and in the spirit of charity with which he referred to ours I would like to give my party’s full agreement to his first three amendments. We have some doubts about the issue of getting a Speaker by the back door. After the next election there is a danger that the oldest Member might find himself stuck in the chair for longer than might be healthy for him. However, given that MrPRobinson has described those as probing amendments, we shall listen with interest to any response which comes from Standing Orders Committee.
I want to speak to what I thought was one amendment and now stands as two amendments — 85A and 85B. The net effect of those would be to leave out four sets of inverted commas, but those inverted commas go to the heart of our problem, which is the whole issue of identity and each person’s right to define his or her identity. We have already had a minor row about how some Members designated themselves. The Standing Order is based on the Good Friday Agreement. Paragraph 6 of strand one refers to nationalist, unionist or other, with lower case letters and no quotation marks.
The Northern Ireland Act1998 refers to designated Nationalist and designated Unionist, with lower case "d", capital "N" and capital "U" and no quotation marks. The Initial Standing Orders from the Secretary of State similarly use capital letters but no quotation marks. The difference between the word "Other" without inverted commas and the word "Other" with inverted commas, as it appears in this draft Standing Order, is fundamental. The Alliance Party believes that every Member has the right to define herself or himself. This is quite clear in the Agreement, in the Act, in the Initial Standing Orders and in the current draft, as long as one defines oneself as either Nationalist or Unionist.
It might be thought slightly bizarre that Members of the House, elected on behalf of Sinn Féin or the SDLP, can designate themselves Unionist but that is their right. Similarly, any Member of one of the many parties with "Unionist" in their title can designate himself or herself as Nationalist. That is the current position, but the right of self-designation is no less than the right of self-determination. Every Member must have the right to designate his or her own identity. It is a gross insult to Members from my party and, indeed, other Members who do not put their primary identity in terms of the ancient quarrel to say that we cannot choose our own designation but must adopt the meaningless and offensive term "Other".
Are we to be regarded as what South Africans used to describe as "non-white" because we are neither orange nor green? It is not only Alliance Members or others in the centre who will be affected. Some Members have already designated themselves as Nationalist/Irish Republican, and in the future some Members may wish to define a particular form of Unionism. Neither would be permitted under the draft Standing Order which specifies a single word. Anything other than the single word "Nationalist" or the single word "Unionist" could not be regarded as fitting that designation.
The proposed Standing Order is, however, more than just offensive to some of us. In demanding the use of the term "Other," it contradicts the Good Friday Agreement and also the Act, which is specifically for the purposes of implementing the Agreement. The Agreement and the Act lay down circumstances in which votes are counted which depend upon the votes of Nationalists and the votes of Unionists. There is no specific counting of the votes of those who do not fit into those two designations.
Therefore there is absolutely no reason to specify how other Members should designate themselves if they do not wish to be regarded as Nationalist or Unionist. Attempting to specify how others designate themselves appears more than a little arrogant.
The draft Standing Order is contrary to the European framework convention on the protection of national minorities which was ratified by the UK in January 1998 and came into force in February of that year — that is before the Good Friday Agreement.
If this draft Standing Order is approved by the Assembly, the next Alliance Member to take a seat will have no choice but to force a determination of the legality of the Standing Order. Standing Orders, I repeat, can only be made within the bounds set out by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Act uses the terms "designated Nationalist" and "designated Unionist", which are defined in Chapter47, clause4(5). It does not use the term "Other", either with or without inverted commas, and the use of the term "Other", with a capital letter and in inverted commas, in the draft Standing Orders is therefore inconsistent with the Act. It is wrong, and it is ultra vires.
It would hardly be an advertisement for pluralism and new relationships in Northern Ireland if this Standing Order were held to be illegal under any aspects of human-rights legislation, whether domestic or European, because a few inverted commas infringed the rights of a minority of members. I urge Members to amend this Standing Order of their own volition to bring it into line with the agreement rather than wait for the courts to do so.

Lord Alderdice: I have received no further requests from Members to speak on the amendments in the first group. We will therefore proceed to vote on the first group of Standing Orders and amendments.
Standing Order 1 (The Speaker) agreed to.
Standing Order 2 (Notice of First Meeting of New Assembly) agreed to.
Standing Order 3 (Procedure at First Meeting of New Assembly).
Amendment (No 42) made: 
Amendment (No 85A) proposed: 
Question put 
The Assembly proceeded to a Division.

Lord Alderdice: May I have order, please. Will Members please refrain from speaking during Divisions except when responding to their names and make sure that those responses can be heard. It is not always easy for the Clerks to hear what is being said when Members are speaking in different languages.
The Assembly having divided: Ayes 39; Noes52.
AYES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, John Kelly, Mrs Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Donavan McClelland, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Malloy, Conor Murphy, Mrs Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsay, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Other
Mrs Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, MsMonica McWilliams, MsJane Morrice.
NOES
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, Fraser Agnew, MsPauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, MrsJoan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Sir John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, RevWilliam McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Rt Hon David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Lord Alderdice: The total number of votes was 91. The number of Ayes was 39 (42%). The number of Nationalist votes was 33 (100% Aye). The number of Unionist votes was 52 (0% Aye).
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment (No 85B) proposed: 
Question

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. During my speech, I questioned whether that Standing Order was legal in terms of the Act. Can you tell me how I could obtain a ruling on that before we take the final vote on these Standing Orders, presumably tomorrow?

Lord Alderdice: You have raised the question. A number of issues are involved in this. Even when the Assembly takes its vote, that is not, in itself, a determination of the Standing Orders prior to devolution. You can take it for granted that I will be asking for legal advice myself, but that does not preclude you or any other Member also seeking legal advice. Legal advice, of course, is what it says — advice, not a determination.
Amendment (No 41) made: 
Amendment (No 40) made: 
"A Member may change his or her party affiliation at any time. Any such change takes effect 7 days after notification in writing is submitted to the Speaker." — [Mr P Robinson]
Standing Order 3, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 4 (Election of Speaker)
Amendment (No 38) made: 
"Where the Assembly is unable to elect a Speaker under the foregoing provisions of this Standing Order, but where a Deputy Speaker has been elected by virtue of Standing Order 5, the Deputy Speaker shall act as Speaker. In the case of more than one Deputy Speaker being elected they shall act in turn until a Speaker is elected."— [Mr P Robinson]
Amendment (No 39) made: 
"Where the Assembly is unable to elect either a Speaker, under the foregoing provisions of this Standing Order, or a Deputy Speaker, by virtue of Standing Order 5, the Chair shall be taken, until a Speaker or Deputy Speaker is elected, by an Acting Speaker, who shall be the eldest Member of the Assembly."
Standing Order 4, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 5 (Deputy Speaker) agreed to.
Standing Order 6 (Procedure when Office of Speaker becomes vacant) agreed to.

Operations of the Assembly

Lord Alderdice: We now come to the second group of Standing Orders and amendments. I want to draw attention to two matters in this regard. First — and I am indebted to one Member who pointed this out to me earlier — the list includes two amendments numbered 26. The first should be numbered 36.
With regard to amendments 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B, if these are all moved, then we will come first, of course, to the vote on amendment 1A. If amendments 1A and 2A are passed, we need not move to amendments1B and 2B as they are alternative proposals. However, if amendments. 1A and 2A are not passed, amendments1B and 2B may be moved.
The first amendment is in the name of MrPeter Robinson.

Mr Peter Robinson: The purpose of amendment No37 is to add at the end of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 9 the following words:
"The business adjourned shall be the first business when the Assembly next sits".
It would be difficult to cover all these issues in 10minutes. I hope at some stage to speak to the other amendments. There is the further difficulty that there are many issues of more substance in this group, and we might be juggling too many balls at one time. That concerns me.

Lord Alderdice: What the Member says is perfectly reasonable, not only in respect of this group but in respect of the group further down the list, and particularly the group of amendments on committees. I ask Members to speak to the number of amendments that they can reasonably deal with in 10minutes. We must try to be reasonable on these matters.

Mr Peter Robinson: Thank you for that ruling, MrInitial Presiding Officer.
The first amendment in my name in this group relates to the issue of the quorum, and refers to the loss of a quorum during a debate and the possible adjournment of the Assembly. I leave myself open to advice from the joint Chairmen or any members of the Committee, but as I understand it, a Member could wait for some time to bring a matter that is important at least to him, to the Assembly only to find that it is not of the same importance to others who leave the Member almost alone in the Chamber. The quorum is lost, and Members are not interested in returning to the Chamber. Is the business lost or can the Member have his day when the Assembly resumes?
I suspect that a quorum will not be a problem for the four major parties as each of them is capable of providing a quorum, and can do so when they have an interest in the business. It will be more difficult for smaller parties that could not provide a quorum and could be denied the opportunity to deal with an issue. A similar principle is dealt with in a later amendment to Standing Order 16, which is a delaying motion when a motion is made for the adjournment of a debate. In that case the adjournment is caused not by the loss of a quorum, but through the Question being put. That would be a mechanism that a party or parties could use to avoid a vote during the life of the Assembly.
People who bring a motion or subject to the Assembly have the right to have it decided, irrespective of whether it is decided in their favour. They have a right to a determination, and it is necessary for us to ensure that the Standing Orders clearly provide the right of Members to have a vote and to have the time to make their case. The aim of those two amendments is to ensure that if the House is adjourned for one reason or another, its first business at its next sitting is the business that was adjourned. That might make less likely the use of procedure as a device to curtail debate.
The next amendment deals with public business, and I am again open to advice from the members of the Committee. I assume that we attach some importance to the role of statutory committees. We would consider their reports to be of such significance that they would be included in public business along with stages of Bills and notices of motion. That is a simple, tidying amendment to include statutory committee reports.
Members may consider that the reports from other Committees should also be included. I have not considered that, but the Standing Orders Committee may wish to consider it at a later stage.
The next amendment affects Standing Order15(4). I suggest simply taking out the last two words, which indicate that one can only withdraw an amendment during debate. An amendment is usually withdrawn at the end of a debate, and my proposed amendment would simply have the effect of allowing a Member to withdraw an amendment before a Division was called.
My amendment to Standing Order16(2) takes away the right of the Speaker to make proposals. The Speaker simply puts a Question; he does not propose it. I was pleased to hear that you, Sir, when explaining the various amendments, encouraged everyone to support Standing Order26. I think his exact remarks were "you can only approve of 26 once", and I hope that Members follow his advice. So my amendment to 16(2) would have the effect of replacing "propose" with "put", and that part of the Standing Order would then read "decline to put the Question". There is a similar drafting amendment to be found later on.
The next amendment deals with statements. The Committee spent some time considering the amount of time to be allowed for questions on statements. As it stands, the Speaker must allow questions on a statement for up to onehour if there are Members still wanting to ask questions.
The Speaker must be given some discretion in this matter. My amendments would introduce two changes. The first amendment would have the effect of allowing questions to last for no more than onehour, and the second would allow the Speaker discretion to curtail the amount of time subject to the content of the statement. If it were a statement of substance, the Speaker would determine that it was a matter on which questions should last for as much of an hour as Members needed for the matters to be elucidated. The Speaker might determine that a statement was not a matter of such importance as to warrant the full hour.
At the moment there are proposals for 10Departments as well as the central Department. Each of the Ministers could decide, over his cornflakes, to make a statement that day, and we could therefore have ten statements being made in any one day. Do Members really want to have tenhours of questions? No is the answer to that. There must be some discretion on the part of the Speaker to deal with that matter in a way that would reflect the wishes of the House and the importance of the statements being made. I expect that the Executive Committee will organise its business so that we do not have ten statements on one day, but if the Assembly is only going to have two sitting days in the one week, we could still have, on a very frequent basis, a number of statements on any one day.
The next amendment relates to Standing Order18(5). I have decided, in Churchillian fashion, that this is something up with which I shall not put. As the Standing Order ends with a preposition, I am suggesting a change to correct the grammar.
There are only two amendments that I have not touched on. The Standing Orders do not put any requirement upon a Minister to respond to an Adjournment debate. There is a general view in the Assembly that if a Member takes the trouble to bring forward an issue of importance to him, and perhaps to others, the relevant Minister of the NorthernIreland Executive should have an allocated time slot in which to respond. I suggest 10minutes, but I am not hard and fast on that. That amendment is put forward on the basis that a Minister should have the right to respond to issues concerning his or her departmental responsibilities.
Finally, and very briefly, I will touch on the matter of questions being placed. As the Standing Orders stand, questions will be taken in the order in which they are put down. This practice did not serve us well in another place because Government Ministers ensured that all their Back-Benchers placed questions down immediately, leaving them with a friendly set of questions. Were questions to be decided by ballot, held by the Clerk or the Speaker, that would be fair to every Member.
The following amendments stood on the Order Paper in the name of the First Minister (Designate):
No 1A: In Standing Order 10(2), line 3, leave out "10.30am to 6.00pm" and insert "2.00pm to 8.00pm".
No 1B: 
No 2A:
No 2B:

Rt Hon David Trimble: While we have not completely settled our mind, and consultations are continuing, we are favourably disposed to most of the amendments that MrPeterRobinson has dealt with.
By way of contrast, the amendments in my name were put down to enable me to make some points about the times at which we should be sitting. I do not intend to press any of them to a Division. They were tabled in the spirit, as is often the case on these occasions, of running a flag up the pole to see who salutes it. Very few people saluted these four amendments and that was the case even among my friends around me.
I do, however, have an important couple of points to make which I wish to press on Members. With regard to the sitting times in the House, I believe that a serious mistake is being made, and I expect that in a few months’ time we will have to come back to this issue and look at it again.
It may be thought superficially attractive to have sitting hours that correspond to working hours, but that does not work. It is not practical. Members need to consider that if the Chamber is sitting from 10.30am to 6.00pm and that if there is serious business in the Chamber between those times, the likelihood is that they will be engaged for some or most of that time in the Chamber. If they are so engaged, when are they going to do their work? And there is work to be done outside the Chamber.
That work involves constituency work, research, reading and thinking. Some of it can be done in the evenings, but how much? Research work and preparation requires access to materials and that material may not always be available in the evening at home. It may be that Members will need time for that other than in the evening.
Then there are those who will have other responsibilities, whether as Committee chairman, vice-chairman or Ministers — when are they going to work if the Chamber is sitting from 10.30am to 6.00pm? They cannot administer their offices during the evening unless Civil Service hours are changed radically, and that might involve a fair amount of overtime.
So there is a serious point here because while the affairs of the Chamber are extremely important, they are only a part of the work that a Member has to do. It is for this reason that almost all deliberative and legislative bodies sit in the afternoon and evening, not the morning. Mornings are required for work, and if Members do not have the mornings for work, there is a problem.
Even the larger parties have problems, particularly in relation to group meetings: if they had to begin before 10.30am, that would obviously limit the numbers able to attend. This is not a problem for small parties; nor is it a problem for those parties that run on the Führerprinzip, where everybody does what the Leader says, irrespective of circumstances. But not all parties are like that. There is a serious point there too.
There is a not-so-serious point but, equally, it is not an insubstantial one. One of the consequences of an Assembly, legislative body or parliament’s sitting in the evening is the growth of a degree of esprit de corps among its members that would not happen were the sittings to be limited to daytime.
I know the objection that will be made to the argument I am putting forward, and I have been told that it was made in the Standing Orders Committee. Members have said that they want family-friendly sitting hours. That argument is also wrong. It is the mornings and afternoons that are needed for those with young children, not the evenings. When Members use the expression "family friendly" they really mean that they want their evenings free for their own social lives, not for families and children. People who enter public life must realise that they do so at the sacrifice of their social life.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am interested to know what exactly the First Minister’s children do in the evenings that they do not require parental supervision?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am in the very fortunate position of having complete confidence in the good sense of my wife and of all my children.

Mrs Eileen Bell: The First Minister (Designate) has said that he needed to see his children in the mornings and the afternoons, but what happens to their schooling?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I was making a very simple point which I thought Mrs Bell would understand. Young children need parental care in the mornings and afternoons rather than the evenings. With older children, of course, parental care is demonstrated in other ways.
I return to the primary point that I made earlier. Work has to be done outside this Chamber, and the sittings of this Chamber have to be organised with that in mind. That is why similar bodies have tended towards sitting in the afternoons and evenings. The pattern of sitting from 10.30am to 6.00pm has not been a problem with the Assembly only sitting intermittently, but it will be a problem in the future when the Assembly will be sitting on a regular basis. In time those who do not see substance of my present argument will come to appreciate that this is a matter that we will have to return to.
I wanted to make that argument and to share with Members some of the reasons why experience has led other bodies to sit at the times they do. Experience will also have an impact on what we do in the future. However, I shall not be pressing these amendments to a Division. From my soundings, I have already gathered that the House would be against them.

Mrs Eileen Bell: There are a few people who would like to comment on the First Minister’s proposals.
First, I take on board what has been said about the pressure of business and, as time goes on, about the extension of that. However, we should establish the principle of having hours that will help us both in our professional life and in our family life.
With all due respect, I do not feel that Westminster is necessarily an example which we should follow. Many of the Members at Westminster have flats or town houses. We do not, and most Members here travel to and from their homes. I understand that at one of the earliest meetings of the Committee on Standing Orders there was very little dissent — apart from Ulster Unionist Members — when it was proposed that we should operate according to the current timetable, with, perhaps, a slightly different starting time. The plan was to see how these hours suited the House and to review them in due course, if necessary.
I can be as friendly with people during the day as I can during the evening, so I do not think that that represents an argument in favour of a change. Also, if the House sits from 10.30 am, I have time to do a considerable amount of work, including housework, before I come in, so I do not think that that is a serious argument either.
I appreciate what the First Minister (Designate) is saying about the workload that we will have, but I feel that we should try to operate a system that is both family-friendly and profession-friendly. I will not support this change.

Ms Jane Morrice: I endorse what Mrs Bell has said, and I thank the First Minister (Designate) for deciding not to push this point. The fact that we have agreed to suspend sittings at 6.00 pm is of great importance to a number of us. This is not just of benefit to people with families — men as well as women — but also more suitable for Members who have to travel considerable distances. Those with journeys of one-and-a-half to two hours will not get home until after midnight if we do not stop until 10.30 pm.
As MrsBell said, we can be friendly with our colleagues during daylight hours, not just in the evening. It is important that we move into the modern world. I said earlier that the Scottish Parliament would be following our lead. These old-fashioned times are for the dinosaurs.

Mr Robert McCartney: I do not wish to play the role of referee between feminist obsession and the remnants of male chauvinist piggery.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Where is that?

Mr Robert McCartney: The First Minister (Designate) asks where that is. I got the impression that he had consigned responsibility for the care of his children to the lady of the house. Many people, in the modern world, would consider that to be sexist and to have overtones of male chauvinism.
However, I have some sympathy for what the First Minister (Designate) has said. Anyone who is involved in public life, in Government, or in the work of the Assembly, is involved in a public duty. Such public duty, from time to time, calls for sacrifices in our domestic lives. Members of the Assembly who are also Members of the House of Commons will know that. Members, such as Mr Hume and MrPaisley, who are also Members of the European Parliament have sacrificed a great deal of their domestic lives to public service.
The First Minister (Designate) has a point when he says that there is much business to be conducted in addition to attendance in the Chamber. I think that we should have a trial period for the times given in the proposed Standing Orders, whether they be family-friendly or not, to see if they are suitable. The First Minister (Designate) has agreed not to pursue this issue at this stage. Many Members may well have grave reservations as to whether these times will be suitable in practice.
Those who have spoken about the long distances travelled by some Members should bear in mind that many Members of Parliament have to be away from their families from Monday to Friday.

Ms Jane Morrice: Shame.

Mr Robert McCartney: Ms Morrice shouts "Shame!", but, if you happen to be the Member for the Outer Hebrides, you may not see your family for three or four days a week — this might even apply to the Member for South Down. We must accept that, if we are involved in public service and have decided to put other things to one side, there will be a certain degree of domestic inconvenience.
Domestic arrangements should be met to a degree, but it would be entirely foolish to make the work of the Assembly subservient to whether a Member could get home by 6.30pm to make her husband’s tea or, in the case of a male Member, to do his share of the ironing. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order.

Mr Robert McCartney: I make no secret of engaging in quite a few household chores, but ironing is not one of them.
But let me return to a serious note. Being engaged in public service makes demands upon all of us in our private, social and domestic lives. It is impossible to organise public business entirely around the hours that would be convenient and suitable.
As the First Minister (Designate) has suggested — and he is not pushing this — Members should give this a run but keep it under very careful observation to see whether it works. If it does not work, Members will have to revisit the issue.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The First Minister (Designate) has decided not to push this issue to a vote having taken some soundings. I suspect that these were taken among his party as well as other parties. My Colleagues and I have noted that this has become a bit of a habit — his finding difficulty in getting support from his party for some of the things that he has been proposing. I suppose he did not want to embark on another round of letter-writing to give assurances.
I want to comment on the argument put forward that if Members wish to stop the sittings of the House at 6.00pm it is to allow Members to enjoy an extended social life, get away from work and have a jolly old time. I do not know about the First Minister (Designate), but most Members who represent inner-city constituencies — and I suspect other areas are no different — will find that when they leave here at 6.00pm on a Monday or Tuesday, they are not going home immediately or to enjoy social life.
In areas of extensive redevelopment there are housing and community groups, and other activities as well, which can only be accommodated in the evening. That is the only time when constituents who are working during the day are available. I wish to dispel the idea that by adjourning the House at 6.00pm, Members are then free. That is not the case, and if Members were to continue until 8 pm, some very important constituency duties could not be carried out.
Members must be careful not to regard this place as a kind of ivory tower where they are increasingly cut off from their constituents. The time here must be arranged to allow Members to do the things which are important to their constituents.
The First Minister (Designate) asked when the work was going to be done if Members started at 10.30am. He wondered how time could be found for reading, thinking and constituency work — especially if holding ministerial office. There are three other days in the week when the Assembly will not be sitting full-time. Committees may be meeting, but there are three days to fit this work in. If Members have research or other work to do, or constituents to see, this is more easily fitted into an evening. So I am not sure that his argument about needing time in the morning for this sort of work is valid. We discussed this in the Committee, and I do not think that there was any great division in the Committee at that stage.

Mr David Ervine: Would the Member agree that when this was raised initially it was considered by some people on the Committee essentially to be of benefit to those who had other business and other potential means of remuneration outside the House?

Mr Sammy Wilson: That was a point which was made at that time.
I would make one last point about flexibility. What happens if Government business runs on? The Committee has already allowed for this in the Standing Orders. Standing Orders10(2) and 10(3) provide for an extension of time into Tuesday evening, Wednesday, or both if business cannot be completed in the allocated time. The flexibility is there. We are mindful that there may well be occasions when the pressure of business will require the House to sit that bit longer, and that is a much more sensible way of facilitating that need.
It was also felt that the sitting hours should be as flexible as possible to allow people with families to have some time in the evening with their families. All in all, the kind of compromise we have reached on timing is a reasonable way to order the business of the House and to give Members the flexibility they need to do their duties to their constituents inside and outside the Assembly.

Mr Peter Weir: Loth as I am to speak against the wishes of the First Minister (Designate), I am minded to agree with the remarks made by the hon Member for East Belfast and also by my Colleagues from North Down. It may well be that in reviewing these arrangements in the future we may find that there is a better way forward and that there are hours which would suit us better. For the moment I am very much persuaded by the views which have been put forward already with regard to timing.
There is a degree of flexibility in the hours we have agreed. Ministers will have full days at work during the days, two of which will be Committee days, when plenary sessions are not taking place. I assume, and Members may correct me, that Ministers will not sit on Committees. Not only will they not chair Committees, or be Deputy Chairmen, they will not be sitting on them either. Thus Government Ministers’ time will be freed up during that period.
With regard to the timings of plenary sittings, it has been suggested that one of the days might run from 2.00 pm to 8.00 pm. As has been indicated by Members, there is a great deal of pressure on them to attend meetings in their constituencies in the evenings if they are to service their constituents in a proper fashion.
Groups of constituents are not usually available during the day. Some people are able to meet Members during the day, but quite often the most convenient time for a group to meet you in connection with a planning issue or an education or housing matter is in the evening. If we are in the Assembly until 8.00 pm it will be very difficult for Members to attend such meetings, and particularly difficult for those whose constituencies are a long way from Belfast. Members who face a one-and-a-half-hour drive, or in some cases a two-hour drive to the most far-flung parts of the Province, will not reach their constituencies until 9.30 pm or 10.00pm. It would be almost impossible for them to attend any meetings during the evenings of those days.
A six o’clock close would allow people, including those who live a long way from Stormont, to get home and attend those meetings. The proposal for the times to be 11.30 am to 7.30 pm would afford some opportunity for group meetings, but there is a danger that whenever a group was not in session, and things were only starting at 11.30 am that that would be, to some extent, a waste of the morning. It would be difficult for ordinary Members to get much work done. There is clearly a point in the suggestion that it would enable Ministers to perform their functions, but there is enough flexibility in that.
When the Assembly goes ‘live’, about 90% of its Members will not be Ministers. We have to think of the work to be done by the Back-Benchers, not just the Ministers — and I speak as someone who is likely to remain a Back-Bencher for the foreseeable future. [Laughter]
The hours that have been put forward are sensible; they are, at least, worth trying, although I note the concerns of the First Minister (Designate) who obviously has a lot more parliamentary experience than the majority of us. [Laughter]
Obviously some have not been persuaded by my argument.
I am glad to see that the matter is not being pressed to the vote. As someone who was on the Standing Orders Committee and agreed these hours, I think they represent a sensible and flexible way forward. This is probably true of a number of rules, but if we find, six months down the line, that this system is not working, that it would be better to have more evening meetings, the procedures can be reviewed.
Unlike some of the other Standing Orders, where there would, arguably, be some contention between individual parties, this is something which, I think, is non-political in that sense. If we find that the system is not working for the benefit of constituents and in the best interests of the Assembly, it can be reviewed very easily and adjustments made. But as it is, the proposals contained in the current Standing Orders are adequate and flexible enough, and I am glad that the amendment will not be —

Mr Derek Hussey: I thought the Member was drawing to a close. Another factor that has to be taken on board and one that no one has mentioned is Members’ safety. Following a long journey here and a day’s work, a Member can be tired when returning to his or her constituency. Those of us who live in the west find that travelling home can be quite dangerous. That should be taken into account; when we are returning home, we should be doing so in a reasonably fresh condition.

Mr Peter Weir: I live in the east of the Province and have the good fortune to live relatively close to Stormont — about half an hour’s drive away — so I have not encountered this problem directly. However, Members who represent the Greater Belfast area ought to behave in an altruistic fashion and realise that Members who come from the west and, indeed, the north and south of the Province, will have lengthy drives. They should try to avoid situations in which, late at night, their safety is endangered.
I agree with Mr Hussey’s point. There is a wide range of issues which would persuade me and the vast majority of others in this Chamber that the proposals, as currently outlined in the report represent the best way forward. They can be reviewed later, but at the moment, I am glad that these amendments are not being put to the vote.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I want to deal first with amendmentNo27. This is a sensible amendment, in keeping with the thoughts of the members of the Standing Orders Committee. It was the Committee’s view that if Adjournment debates were to be worthwhile, a response from a Minister was essential.
One of the difficulties we currently have is that while we have provision for an Adjournment debate, it is very much a case of speaking into the ether. No one takes any notice of what the Member is saying, because there is nobody of any authority to answer the points being made, although as MrWells pointed out earlier the relevant local newspaper will, no doubt, get a copy of his speech within a very short time. It is sensible, and it certainly accords with the view of the Standing Orders Committee that a Ministerial response should be required at the end of the Adjournment debate. I do not know why the Standing Orders did not reflect that.
This is a very sensible amendment, and it should not be left to a Minister’s discretion to decide if he wishes to reply to such a debate — the relevant Minister should be required to do so. I also want to deal with amendments 31 and 32, which relate to ministerial statements, as raised by MrPRobinson, about the time that could be used up if a large number of Ministerial statements were to be put forward for the same sitting.
This was also the subject of debate in the Standing Orders Committee. Indeed, one of the initial drafts suggested that a Ministerial statement would be followed by a debate, but it was, quite rightly, thought that would be improper because many Members would only have received notice of the statement when the Minister stood up or a short time before that. The Committee debated the question of how much time should be devoted to follow-up from the ministerial statement.
In the case of some statements, you would certainly want to use up a full hour, but for others you might not wish to do so. It may be that, out of courtesy, the Minister will wish to draw something to Members’ attention, but it would not be sensible to use up a full hour’s business. The Member should be given discretion, and it should be made clear that he has no more than one hour. As it stands at the moment, it is normally one hour.
In relation to amendment34, we have provision dealing with the adjournment of the Assembly in the Standing Orders, and it is clear under draft Standing Order 10 that an adjournment of the Assembly shall mean an adjournment until the next sitting day unless the Assembly, on a motion made by a Member of the Executive, after notice, has ordered an adjournment to some other definite date.
The point we are dealing with is to do with the adjournment of a debate. It would be wrong and an infringement of Members’ rights if that debate could be adjourned and adjourned for some time. We have built-in provisions which deal with the adjournment of the Assembly. Clearly, if it is adjourned then it will resume at the point at which it left off when it next sits. But if a motion has been tabled, and there is a debate on it, the Standing Orders should make it clear that that simply cannot be done away with by some tactic.
Regarding the amendment standing in the name of the First Minister (Designate) — and I welcome the fact, like the Member who spoke earlier that these are not going to be pressed to a vote — the Standing Orders Committee considered this issue a number of times. When it first came up, most parties agreed that we should at least aim for this sort of timescale, starting in the morning and ending early in the evening. It was brought to the attention of the Standing Orders Committee that the Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party wanted to have the sort of hours that have been shown in these amendments in the name of the First Minister (Designate). There was no support for that from any quarter in the Standing Orders Committee.
I am somewhat surprised that they even appear on the Order Paper. I have some sympathy with some of the initial arguments advanced by the First Minister (Designate) with regard to how we manage our business and how the work might progress. If we see that there is a need to change because of the requirements of the Assembly then certainly the matter can be placed before the Committee on Procedures which will continue to consider and review the procedures and Standing Orders.
The First Minister (Designate) was on altogether more dicey ground when he started into the whole question of family time. He seemed to be suggesting that after 6.30 pm Members go off to socialise or advocating that we spend more time at home in the mornings and afternoons, which was either an argument for people not going out to work at all or an argument for keeping your kids off school. His arguments did not seem to stack up. We should, in the interests of this House and the management of the work of this House, keep that subject matter under review.
We should try, if at all possible, to make the suggested hours work. It is in the interests of most Members with families to try to stick to them. MrWilson’s points in relation to the workload of Members was a case in point. Bearing in mind these points, most of the amendments that are going to be moved on the Floor are ones that many of us who are members of the Standing Orders Committee would have no difficulty with.

Mr Duncan Dalton: I want to take the opportunity to salute the flag that has been run up by the First Minister. The Assembly should consider that, outside of this place, there are a number of people who work hours that are not social. They do not get to work from 9 to 5 or from 10 to 6. I spent many years working —

Mr Peter Weir: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I notice that the clock was not at zero at the start of Mr Shipley Dalton’s speech.

Lord Alderdice: Thank you for your assistance.

Mr Duncan Dalton: I have got extra time now. I thank MrWeir.
As I was saying, for a number of years I worked both in a daytime job, and served as a part-time member of the Royal Irish Regiment. That meant that I was going home at 6 o’clock to grab something to eat before reporting for duty at 6.30 pm, and then working from 6.30 pm to 3o’clock in the morning. Then I was going home to get up at 7 o’clock the next day to go to work again. There were many men working with me who were doing the same thing. There were men who worked 12-hour shifts in Shorts, and then put in eighthours duty in the evenings as well. There are a lot of people who —

Mrs Eileen Bell: As I was listening to the Member I was thinking, as many other Members must have, that we are doing much the same thing. As Mr McCartney said when one takes on a position one takes it on as a matter of duty. That applies to a job or to a Member’s commitment to the Assembly, and we did take that into account. The Member may not have meant to but he did sound quite patronising.

Mr Duncan Dalton: My apologies if the Member felt that I was being patronising. I was simply making the point that outside of this place there are a number of people who, for reasons of their work or family commitments, have to work unsociable hours. It is a bit rich for the Assembly to decide that we would rather work more social hours so that we can have the evenings available. If we choose to use them for constituency business, that is fine. Many people do.
However, it does not seem unreasonable for us to consider that we leave the mornings available for work in this House in order that Ministers and those who hold positions can carry out those functions. We work through the day and into the evening on two days of the week and leave ourselves three evenings for constituency business. That seems a perfectly reasonable proposal to me.

A Member: What about family?

Mr Duncan Dalton: Fortunately, it is not something I have to overly concern myself with because I do not have a family. Apart from feeding the cat, I do not have a heavy domestic burden. The points made by Mr McCartney were relevant. Taking on a public position, taking on a position in the Assembly, is a responsibility that Members choose to accept, and if they choose to accept that responsibility, there is going to be a burden upon their domestic lives. Clearly, in this community, that has been a burden that has gone beyond merely domestic life for many years. We have accepted that burden; we chose to come here, to put ourselves up for election. If Members would prefer more social hours, let them take another job.

Ms Jane Morrice: Having children is also taking on a responsibility. I take the point that the Member has no family as yet, and I warn him that with this type of attitude, he may have difficulties in the future in that domain. Children are as much a responsibility, if not more so, than duties.

Mr Duncan Dalton: I agree that children are indeed a responsibility and one that every person should think carefully about before taking on. But that does not detract from the point I am making that, in taking up a position in public life, a person is accepting additional responsibilities that will have an impact upon his family and domestic circumstances.
I welcome amendment 27. It is quite clear from the comments of Mr Dodds that this was raised in the Committee. Clearly Adjournment debates in this place have been relatively ineffective — one speaks into thin air or gets one’s press release into the local papers. For an Adjournment debate to be worthwhile, the appropriate Minister must be present in the Chamber.
Members, especially Back-Bench Members who will not always get the chance to address their concerns to the appropriate Minister, can direct those concerns to the Minister responsible and ask for a reply. That is extremely important for those Members who have vital, pressing constituency concerns or other concerns that they have specialist knowledge in. I do welcome that particular amendment from MrPRobinson.
Most of the other amendments seem to be corrections of various mistakes or grammatical errors that the Committee has made. It is unfortunate that MrPRobinson was not on the Committee and could have pointed those out as we went along. We live and learn.

Mr Alban Maginness: For the record, the SDLP supports the draft Standing Orders that deal with the present hours. We believe that these hours are family-friendly. We also believe that in relation to travelling, for many of our Members, we are putting an extra burden on them if they have to leave the Assembly at a late hour. Members have many duties in their constituencies at night-time.
It is not appropriate to compare what happens here with what happens at Westminster. Many Members of the Westminster Parliament go to London and stay for three or four days. It is impossible for them to leave Westminster and go back to their constituencies on a daily basis unless they live in the greater London area. The circumstances that prevail at Westminster are quite different from those that prevail here. As a new institution we should strive to set standards that have not been set by Westminster or by other parliamentary institutions in Europe or throughout the world. We should try to set a new standard by which we can afford family-friendly hours to our Members.
Another important point is that, although the Chamber is predominantly male, one hopes that in the future we will have an increase in the number of female Members.
While I emphasise that the hours we have are family-friendly, favourable not only to female Members but also to fathers like myself, it makes it easier for people with young families to come into politics and to be Members of this institution. There is flexibility within our Standing Orders, certainly on Tuesdays, and also on Wednesdays if necessary, to extend the period for debates and plenary sessions. There is a safeguard within the draft Standing Orders to assist us.

Mr James Leslie: Does the Member agree that if the hours were extended into Wednesday, it would obviate the argument that has been made that as long as the business is conducted in two days, there are three days left for other business? Extending into Wednesday would be an unsatisfactory trade-off, and Tuesday evening is to be preferred.

Mr Alban Maginness: I am grateful to the Member for his intervention. The context in which I said that we could go into Wednesday was as a safeguard, increasing the flexibility of sittings. It would not be taken lightly, and it would not automatically follow. It is a safeguard which gives the Assembly extra flexibility to cope with situations that may arise from time to time.
The important thing is for the Assembly to be innovative. The Scottish Parliament will also be addressing the issue of family-friendly hours. We should set an example for other institutions. We should support the present situation and the draft produced by the Standing Orders Committee. If in the future we find that the hours are not working out, we can revisit this, as we can revisit any of the other Standing Orders. For the time being, my party and I believe that we should support this.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. We are engaged in important work here today on the Standing Orders, but I wonder if Members are aware, and whether it would affect their enthusiasm for the matters before us if they were, that the Secretary of State has decreed in Dublin today that she intends to operate d’Hondt on the 29th of this month and thereby push this process to destruction if necessary —

Lord Alderdice: That is not a point of order. It may be very interesting to Members, but it is not a point of order.
I believe that Mr Robinson, when he spoke earlier, referred to all his amendments in this group save one — No 26. I will call him now in case he wishes to speak to that, but before doing so, I wish to make two references to the draft before us. One concerns a typographical error: "a petition shall related" should be "a petition shall relate".
The second concerns a matter on which I am seeking advice. It might be better if the amendment were to say
"within the legal competence of the Assembly as defined by exception in section 6(2)"
rather than simply "as defined", because section 6(2) of the Act defines by listing the exceptions — that is to say, those things that are not within the competence. That does not create any problems for our considering it or for our voting upon it, because we already have something of a catch-all rewrite clause in the first amendment to the report. In order to ensure that we are legally correct, I am taking advice on the matter.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am quite content with that. As I have already mentioned to some Members, most of these were drafted either on a flight to or from London at the weekend. Section 6(2) deals with excepted matters but does not include reserved matters which should not be the subject of petitions either. Your advice is sound.
It is a fairly matter-of-fact amendment simply to take account of the fact that nobody should be entitled to petition the Assembly on a matter over which the Assembly does not have any power. That may be our working practice, but it will make matters much easier for Members who will undoubtedly be asked to present petitions on all sorts of issues, some of which may be security related. I was asked today to sign one which I suspect may be outside the Assembly’s competence. There will be a series of issues, and it is better to be able to give the clear answer that it is not within the competence of a Member to bring a petition of that nature to the Assembly.
I trust that the amendment, as redirected, can be approved. I have one comment on the amendments in the name of the First Minister (Designate). I hope that the Committee is right in its judgement. I fear that he is right, and I rather suspect that he will be able to smile broadly at some later stage when we shall undoubtedly have to revisit the issue. We will not get it right first time, but if it is possible to work on what seems to me to be the most appropriate basis, we should do that. Let us see if it works while recognising that we may have to revisit this issue.
We must also appreciate that constituency Members have other duties. I have no doubt that it is not because Ulster Unionist Members want to lie in bed on a Monday morning that the amendment was tabled. I think that there are genuine reasons for it and that in the fullness of time many of us will have to accept them.
Standing Order 7 (Proccedings to be held in public) agreed to.
Standing Order 8 (Prayers) agreed to.
Standing Order 9 (Quorum)
Amendment (No 37) proposed: 
"The business adjourned shall be the first business when the Assembly next sits"
Question put 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 62; Noes 25.
AYES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Dr Joe Hendron, John Kelly, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Donovan McClelland, DrAlasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamon ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, RevWilliam McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Other
Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, MsMonica McWilliams, Ms Jane Morrice.
NOES
Unionist
Dr Ian Adamson, MsPauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, MrsJoan Carson, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Rt Hon David Trimble, Peter Weir.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 87 Members. Of Nationalists, there voted 34 for and none against, which is 100%. Of Unionists, there voted 27 for and 25 against, which is 51.9% for. The total vote for is 71.26%. I declare the amendment carried.
Amendment accordingly agreed to.
Standing Order9, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 10 (Sittings and Adjournments of the Assembly)
Amendments Nos 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B not moved.
Standing Order 10 agreed to.
Standing Order 11 (Earlier Meetings of the Assembly) agreed to.
Standing Order 12 (Public Business)
Amendment (No 36) made: 
Standing Order12, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 13 (Private Business) agreed to.
Standing Order 14 (Seconders) agreed to.
Standing Order 15 (Amendments)
Amendment (No 35) made: 
Standing Order 15, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 16 (Delaying Motions)
Amendment (No 34) made: 
"Where a motion is made for the adjournment of a debate the motion shall specify the length of adjournment and in any case it shall not be for a period greater than 7 days. The Speaker shall not permit more than one adjournment on the same debate except by leave of the Assembly." — [Mr P Robinson]
Amendment (No 33) made: 
Standing Order 16, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 17 (Speeches in the Assembly) agreed to.
Standing Order 18 (Statements)
Amendment (No 31) made: 
"The Speaker shall determine the time period taking into consideration the content of the statement, the number of Members wishing to ask questions and the pressure of other business." —[MrP Robinson]
Amendment (No 32) made: 
Amendment (No 30) made: 
"unless, by leave, the Assembly determines to dispense with this requirement." —[Mr P Robinson ]
Standing Order 18, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 19 (Questions)
Amendment (No 29) made: 
"The sequence that questions are taken shall be determined by ballot carried out by the Speaker." —[Mr P Robinson]
Standing Order 19, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 20 (Private Notice Questions) agreed to.
Standing Order 21 (Adjournment Debates)
Amendment (No 28) made: 
Amendment (No 27) made: 
"Where the subject matter of an adjournment debate is the responsibility of a member of the Executive Committee 10 minutes shall be allotted for a Ministerial response at the end of the debate." —[MrP Robinson]
Standing Order 21, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 22 (Public Petition)

Lord Alderdice: In the proposed new paragraph the word "related" on the Marshalled List should be "relate", and the words "as defined in section6(2)" on the Marshalled List should be "as defined by exception in section6".
Amendment (No26) made: 
"A petition shall relate to matters that are within the legal competence of the Assembly as defined by exception in section6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998." — [Mr P Robinson ]
Standing Order 22, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 23 (Presentation of Papers and Accounts) agreed to.

Voting

Lord Alderdice: We move to the third set of amendments. The first of these is No83, which stands in the name of MrPeter Robinson.

Mr Peter Robinson: This amendment, if moved, would have the purpose of inserting after paragraph(2) of Standing Order25 the following new paragraph:
"the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister shall require parallel consent."
The amendment relates to a matter concerning the election system that is operating in the Assembly. At least three mechanisms are employed — parallel consent, the issue of cross-community support and the simple majority. I felt that it was important to have the definition of the two less-well-known voting procedures included in Standing Orders.
During the debate on the motion to take note of the report, one of the joint Chairmen said that the Committee would consider producing a consolidated document covering all the matters relating to the Assembly. Therefore it might be appropriate not to move amendment No83, and leave it to the Committee to work on as part of its consolidation. It deals with one of the areas in which the parallel consent mechanism will operate, but as Mr McFarland has pointed out privately to me, that would take the issue of the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister out of its proper sequential position in the Standing Orders.
I am quite content not to move this amendment unless there is any strong feeling that I should.
I want to move the amendments which include definitions of cross-community support and parallel consent, as set out in the Northern Ireland Act1998 and, indeed, in the Belfast Agreement. There was a heading for amendment No 23, which deals with crosscommunity support, just as there is for amendment No 50, which deals with parallel consent. This simply reflects the way that it would be set out in the Standing Orders.
There is also an error in amendment No25 as set out on the Marshalled List. The reference to Standing Order 26(b) should be to Standing Order 26(2)(b)". I consider Standing Order 26(2)(b) —

Mr Gregory Campbell: Or not to be.

Mr Peter Robinson: It may not be.
Sub-paragraph (b) is unnecessary because paragraph (2)(a) allows the Speaker to determine whether there is sufficient agreement in the Assembly for a Division to be called. If it is not possible for parties to provide two Tellers, clearly there will not be a Division.
We have seen from proceedings to date that there will not be a Division unless Members force one. Some Members said "No" in votes on amendments, but we did not get to the stage where the Initial Presiding Officer felt it necessary to call a Division. Likewise, when Members from one of the smaller parties feel that they would like to have their views on a particular matter recorded, it is quite likely that the Speaker, under the terms of paragraph(2)(b), would decide that there is no need for a Division, as the number of Members calling for it is so small.
However, if we remove sub-paragraph (b), smaller parties will be able to force Divisions, as long as they can nominate Tellers. That seems appropriate in instances where they feel strongly about a particular issue. The removal of this sub-paragraph would not reduce the effectiveness of the Assembly in that regard, and the Speaker would still have considerable discretion in cases where parties cannot nominate the necessary Tellers.
Those are the only issues I wish to raise on this group of amendments.

Mr Denis Haughey: The SDLP is prepared to support amendment No 83, even though it might be regarded as superfluous. Mr Robinson referred to the fact that I said that we would probably produce a consolidated compendium of Standing Orders, incorporating not only the Standing Orders agreed here, but also the relevant sections of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and of the agreement. If the Member who moved the amendment is happy to withdraw it, we would be content with that.
With regard to amendment No25, we have some reservations about the withdrawal of Standing Order26(2)(b). We would oppose that.

Mr Alan McFarland: I am slightly concerned because there are three areas, and Mr Robinson has referred to them already — amendments 83, 23 and 50 — which repeat sections of the Act. As I understand it — and I am a late arrival to the Standing Orders Committee — the policy of the Standing Orders Committee is clear, and the whole set of Standing Orders is predicated on the understanding that areas of the Act are not repeated in the Standing Orders, except on very specific occasions.
If that policy were to be changed it could have a knock-on effect right through the Standing Orders. If the Member was willing to withdraw those three areas and allow the Standing Orders Committee to re-examine whether there are areas of the Act that need to go into the Standing Orders, that would be a slightly more satisfactory option than voting today.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Members have seen today how the initial Standing Orders are operating given that we have to vote by recorded vote. Many Members who are on councils know that that is the way that voting operates, but it is not very satisfactory. It is a long, drawn-out process. The type of voting system set forth in Standing Orders 24 to 26 will mark a major improvement in terms of voting by Division and going through the Lobbies. It will be a much more efficient system, and it is modelled very closely on what happens in other places.
However, the Standing Orders Committee did say — I am sure that the Chairmen will back me up on this — that the question of voting systems would be looked at again, given the advances in technology. Again this is an issue which we will leave to see how it works in practice, but I am sure that it will be a major advance on the current system.
I raised the matter of 26(2)(b) with officials because I, like Mr Robinson, was concerned that it might be unnecessary and might be used against small parties — indeed, any party — which wanted to force a Division in order to have a vote recorded. The Speaker might use this power to deny that opportunity to parties. If parties want their vote to be recorded, that should be their right. For example, in councils if one member demands a recorded vote, the vote is recorded. Therefore in a legislative body a party should have the right to insist that its votes be recorded. That is essentially why the proposal is being made in relation to 26(2)(b).
Amendment No 24, in Mr Robinson’s name, relates to a petition of concern. The Standing Orders Committee had included this Standing Order, but it is in the wrong place. If Members look at Standing Order 53(5) as drafted in the compendium of Standing Orders, they will find that the Standing Order has been placed there. Members agreed that there should be a Standing Order in relation to a petition of concern.
I think it was Mr Farren of the SDLP who said that he wanted to come back to this issue. Members looked at this Standing Order and agreed the text of it, but it has somehow ended up in 53(5), which deals with equality. However, it is a much more general Standing Order. Therefore what Mr Robinson is proposing, quite rightly, is to take it out of the equality section and put it into the voting section where it belongs.
As far as the other matters are concerned, this is a repeat of what is in the Act. I heard what MrMcFarland has said, and this is clearly a matter which the Assembly can decide. It is something that might be more sensible to have complete, in that sense, when we are dealing with voting. But it is a matter for the Assembly to decide. These are important provisions, and the section on voting will mark a major improvement in the way that work is carried out in the Assembly.

Dr Sean Farren: The point relating to the petition of concern is to some extent well-made. Does it not follow that there is no need for the petition of concern in the equality section, in which it now appears, because it is couched in the general terms which are required for its general application to our proceedings? If this amendment were adopted, would this Standing Order be repeated unnecessarily?

Mr Nigel Dodds: When we come to those amendments we can look at that.

Mr Mark Durkan: MrRobinson has proposed an amendment which would remove the duplicated reference.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the Member for that.

Lord Alderdice: MrRobinson referred to amendments83, 25, 23 and 50, but I do not think that he referred to No24. I am not sure whether he was to speak to that amendment at this point.

Mr Peter Robinson: Amendment24 is one where we do not have a choice. Section42 of the NorthernIreland Act1998 says
(1) "If 30 members petition the Assembly expressing their concern about a matter which is to be voted on by the Assembly, the vote on that matter shall require cross-community support.
(2) Standing orders shall make provision with respect to the procedure to be followed in petitioning the Assembly under this section, including provision with respect to the period of notice required."
This is one of the instances where there was a requirement in the legislation which had not been met by the report from the Committee on Standing Orders. MrDodds indicated that we had taken from section53(5). However, subsection(5) relates to paragraph1 of the proposed new Standing Order under amendment No 24. We have had to add paragraph(2) to comply with the legislation. That fulfils the period-of-notice requirement.

Lord Alderdice: There are no further requests from Members to speak, so we come to the decisions on these Standing Orders and the group of amendments.
Standing Order24 (Closure of Debate) agreed to.
Standing Order25 (Voting — General)

Lord Alderdice: Is amendment No83 moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: Not moved.
Standing Order 25 agreed to.
Standing Order26 (Voting where the Speaker’s Decision is Challenged)
Amendment (No 25) proposed: 
"call for the nomination of tellers and divide the Assembly in the manner provided below."—[Mr P Robinson]
Question put 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 31; Noes 53.
AYES
Unionist
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, Rev William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Other
Mrs Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Ms Monica McWilliams.
NOES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsMichelle Gildernew, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
Dr Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, MrsJoan Carson, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 84Members. All 31 Nationalists voting voted No. Of the 48Unionists voting, 54.2% voted Aye. The total number of Ayes being 36.9%, the amendment is lost.
Question accordingly negatived.
Standing Order 26 agreed to.
New Standing Order
Amendment (No 24) made: 
"(1) A Petition of Concern in respect of any matter shall be in the form of a notice signed by at least 30Members presented to the Speaker. No vote may be held on a matter which is the subject of a Petition of Concern until at least one day after the Petition of Concern has been presented.
(2) Other than in exceptional circumstances, a Petition of Concern shall be submitted at least one hour before the vote is due to occur. Where no notice of the vote was signalled or such other conditions apply that delay the presentation of a Petition of Concern the Speaker shall determine whether the Petition is time-barred or not." —[MrPRobinson]
New Standing Order
Amendment (No 23) proposed: 
"In relation to a vote on any matter ‘cross-community support’ means (a) the support of a majority of the Members voting, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting; or (b) the support of 60per cent of the Members voting, 40per cent of the designated Nationalists voting and 40per cent of the designated Unionists voting." —[MrPRobinson]
Question put 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 27; Noes 55.
AYES
Nationalist
Nil.
Unionist
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, Rev William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Others
David Ford, Kieran McCarthy.
NOES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsMichelle Gildernew, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, MrsJoan Carson, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage.
Other
MsMonica McWilliams.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 82Members: 32 Nationalists, none of whom voted for, and 47 Unionists, 53.2% of whom voted yes. The total percentage of Ayes being 32.9%, I declare the amendment lost.
Question accordingly negatived.

Lord Alderdice: Amendment No50: moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: This amendment, whose purpose was to insert
"In relation to a vote on any matter ‘parallel consent’ means the support of a majority of the Members voting, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting."
as a new Standing Order, is not moved.

Lord Alderdice: That being the case, we have come to the end of the consideration of this group of amendments and of this section of the compendium. I said at the start, which was about three hours ago although it seems longer, that we would try to get to Standing Order41, which deals with ministerial appointments. However, with 15minutes to go we have come to the end of a group.
We have dealt with 28 amendments. There are 65 to go, so we have dealt with just under a third of the amendments. We have dealt with 26 Standing Orders out of 71, which is just more than a third, in about three hours. I sense that at this rate we should be able to finish our business tomorrow. I hope that I have sensed the mood of the House. I suggest that, by leave of the House, the sitting be suspended now and resumed at 10.30 tomorrow morning, continuing if necessary until 10.00 tomorrow night.
The sitting was suspended at 5.48pm.